Harper Makes Child Care a Confidence Vote

[August1991]

The Tory election promise to give parents cash for child care will be included in the upcoming federal budget and will be subjected to a confidence vote, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says.

Harper challenged his Liberal, Bloc and New Democrat critics to take his minority government down over the pledge.

Link

The prime minister, attending a discussion at a Burnaby community centre, told people his plan:

• Requires no federal-provincial negotiations;
  

• No funding for academics, researchers or special interest groups;
  

• Cuts out the bureaucratic middleman
  

CTV

Harper's not really going for a 1958 here so who will blink first? The BQ or the Liberals?

Something else. I really find ironic that those in favour of a woman's freedom to choose concerning abortion are not in favour of a woman's freedom to choose once the child is born.

[Shakeyhands]

Wow... what a man!

Cheap theatrics.. that is all. Let see him do it in 6-12 months over say... SSM...

Still hasn't done much to impress....

God Bless Canada!

[geoffrey]

The BQ will bite. Harper had mentioned he will honour Quebec's agreement to some extent.

Quebec is generally acustomed to having their cake and eatting it to, so why wouldn't the BQ vote in favour of having twice the rest of Canada?

[Michael Hardner]

Something else. I really find ironic that those in favour of a woman's freedom to choose concerning abortion are not in favour of a woman's freedom to choose once the child is born.

Uh.... no. There are a few problems with that, logically.

I don't think Harper will be using this tactic every time, but let's see.

When IS the SSM vote anyway ?

[geoffrey]

Chances are the government will fall before it happens. Why bother with it, what can really be done now?

We've already destroyed any chance at a reasonable outcome.

[Teddy Ballgame]

- During the entire election campaign and in the nearly three months since the election, Harper and other CPC spokespeople made it perfectly clear that their immediate priorities were not 56 like Captain Panama Paul Dithers had but merely five and that, also unlike Dithers, they were actually going to do their level best to keep their priority commitments to Canadians.

- The five CPC commitments were a 2% cut to the GST with 1% in the first budget and the next 1% within the first five years of the government ... a government accountability bill to change most of the seedier ways business is done in Ottawa and to change the culture in which it is done so that fewer Adscams will be attempted, they will be caught sooner, and the perpetrators will actually be punished for absuing the public trust with public money ... a package of defined, specific criminal justice system measures to ensure that the criminal justice system is not just for the criminals, that law abiding citizens also have some rights, and to help ensure that most victims get out of the hospital before most criminals get out of jail ... an agreement with the providers of health care - the provinces - to set and measure the achievement of shorter, more realistic, less painful waiting times for critical health care services even if this requires transporting patients to other jurisdictions for the necessary services on a timely basis ... and a $1200 per year per child under 6 cash benefit (taxable only for the lowest income parent) PLUS a substantial program of tax incentives to encourage corporations and NFP institutions to actually create child care spaces and to ensure that parents have more flexiblity in choosing their preferred method of child care.

- THEREFORE, although under the Liberals we Canadians are used to being manipulated, ignored, deceived and lied to as a matter of political course, I think that it is surely a healthy thing in terms of democratic accountability of the government to the governed that the Conservatives be encouraged and allowed to keep their five specific commitments to Canadians. This means that for those priorities (four of the five) which require legislation, said legislation should be regarded as confidence measures and if the leaderless, policyless, principleless Liberal weasels have such an unquenchable thirst for power and such an utter contempt for democracy that they would try to defeat the Conservatives on any of these five priorities then they should fill thier boots. And if they do, the next destination for the Liberals should and will be Boot Hill.

- Anyone here other than some monopoly public sector unionized child care worker looking for a big raise care to defend the indefensible, i.e. that Harper should back off his commitments and tell Canadians "hey, guys, I was only shooting the shit to get elected, same as the liberals always do"?

BRING IT ON ...

[Michael Hardner]

- THEREFORE, although under the Liberals we Canadians are used to being manipulated, ignored, deceived and lied to as a matter of political course, I think that it is surely a healthy thing in terms of democratic accountability of the government to the governed that the Conservatives be encouraged and allowed to keep their five specific commitments to Canadians. This means that for those priorities (four of the five) which require legislation, said legislation should be regarded as confidence measures and if the leaderless, policyless, principleless Liberal weasels have such an unquenchable thirst for power and such an utter contempt for democracy that they would try to defeat the Conservatives on any of these five priorities then they should fill thier boots. And if they do, the next destination for the Liberals should and will be Boot Hill.

Agreed. Although my politics are to the left ot he current PM's, I think that the clarity and focus he's bringing to government has already elevated the level of policy discourse in Canada. In my opinion, the method of Mr. Harper's approach are more important than the content of these policies, which are really minor adjustments (improvements if you like) to existing policies.

[geoffrey]

The right choice is to not give out any money, Harper knows this, he's an economist. A tax cut will be of bigger benefit, it will make more difference to more parents, especially those that are poor. That is the right choice.

The politically right choice is to hand out the money. That's what he said he'd do. He'd be a hypocrit to do anything else after attacking the Liberals on their hypocracy.

So whats more important, the right choice or the politically right choice? What is good for Canada or what will get him re-elected?

Mulroney did what was best for Canada and got the boot for it. I respect Mulroney for that, and I appreciate the great economy that his legacy has left, despite times of turmoil during his reign.

Would Harper let his plan fail, his government fall, all in the hope of getting that majority so he can fix Canada without making another ridiculous government teat for people to suck off?

I know he knows better. His education has told him better, I've had the same profs. His experience in life in agencies like the NCC has told him better. Why is he pushing something he knows is wrong?

To let the government fall? To gain his majority and then make the changes Canada really needs, instead of what is politically popular? He's a smart guy. I wouldn't put it past him.

[August1991]

The right choice is to not give out any money, Harper knows this, he's an economist. A tax cut will be of bigger benefit, it will make more difference to more parents, especially those that are poor. That is the right choice.

The politically right choice is to hand out the money. That's what he said he'd do. He'd be a hypocrit to do anything else after attacking the Liberals on their hypocracy.

Do you care to explain these viewpoints?

[Hicksey]

- THEREFORE, although under the Liberals we Canadians are used to being manipulated, ignored, deceived and lied to as a matter of political course, I think that it is surely a healthy thing in terms of democratic accountability of the government to the governed that the Conservatives be encouraged and allowed to keep their five specific commitments to Canadians. This means that for those priorities (four of the five) which require legislation, said legislation should be regarded as confidence measures and if the leaderless, policyless, principleless Liberal weasels have such an unquenchable thirst for power and such an utter contempt for democracy that they would try to defeat the Conservatives on any of these five priorities then they should fill thier boots. And if they do, the next destination for the Liberals should and will be Boot Hill.

Agreed. Although my politics are to the left ot he current PM's, I think that the clarity and focus he's bringing to government has already elevated the level of policy discourse in Canada. In my opinion, the method of Mr. Harper's approach are more important than the content of these policies, which are really minor adjustments (improvements if you like) to existing policies.

I too agree. I believe that EVERY PROMISE made during elections should have to be a confidence issue. How better to hold politicians true to their word? Ottawa politics may prevent justice now and then but I think that in the end those that need to be shown the door will be.

[shoop]

Harper is being very smart. He has his five priorities. He is willing to let his Government fall on any one of the five. None of the opposition parties can afford to defeat him on any of the five. Better than "Let's make a deal" on absolutely every piece of legislation.

Look for Harper to have introduced each of the five priorities by Xmas.

From there the timeline will depend on the Senate.

I'd say odds are better than 50/50 for an election wihtin the next 12 to 15 months.

[Hicksey]

As soon as the Liberals have a front man they'll take him down as long as they're not completely tanked in the polls.

If it says nothing else it says that he has moxy, that much is for sure. In a liberal (little l on purpose, Liberals, NDP and BQ are all liberal to differing extents) dominated house he's leveraging his minority position against the Liberals' tendency to live and die by the polls and I'm not sure its as wise as you say. All I can say is that if this is the road Harper is taking he had better start his fundraising now.

To people that might have voted conservative or did it says a lot. To the rest its another message lost because they don't care. And because the Liberals know that the folks that don't care likely outnumber those who do they're probably willing to gamble that people will not only grudgingly go back to the polls, but also vote against the agenda that caused yet another election instead of the party that forced it again.

Harper is being very smart. He has his five priorities. He is willing to let his Government fall on any one of the five. None of the opposition parties can afford to defeat him on any of the five. Better than "Let's make a deal" on absolutely every piece of legislation.

Look for Harper to have introduced each of the five priorities by Xmas.

From there the timeline will depend on the Senate.

I'd say odds are better than 50/50 for an election wihtin the next 12 to 15 months.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Something else. I really find ironic that those in favour of a woman's freedom to choose concerning abortion are not in favour of a woman's freedom to choose once the child is born.

The woman does have the freedom to choose if she wants to work and send the kid to a day care center. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. The question in my mind is: "why should the taxpayer get stiffed because she chooses to work outside the home"?

[margrace]

If I were the liberals I would let Mr. Harpers bill go through and let people see how ineffectual it will be.

[Guest Warwick Green]

If I were the liberals I would let Mr. Harpers bill go through and let people see how ineffectual it will be.

Ineffectual for whom? Not for my daughter who looks after twins at home and who will get $200/month. She got squat from the Martinesque approach.

[Drea]

Something else. I really find ironic that those in favour of a woman's freedom to choose concerning abortion are not in favour of a woman's freedom to choose once the child is born.

The woman does have the freedom to choose if she wants to work and send the kid to a day care center. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. The question in my mind is: "why should the taxpayer get stiffed because she chooses to work outside the home"?

Why should the taxpayer get "stiffed" because she decides to stay home?

Harper is an idiot.

We (provincially) ALREADY have daycare subsidy for those who cannot afford daycare.

The issue is space -- the LACK of daycare space.

On CTV News last night a woman said daycare costs $945 per month PLUS there are 300 (300!!!) children waiting for daycare space.

Money isn't the issue for these parents, finding the space to put their children while they earn tax dollars to support this lousy friggin govt is the issue.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Why should the taxpayer get "stiffed" because she decides to stay home?

Very, very good point. That is why I am opposed to both the Harper and Martin models. Having children is a private decision and I don't see the justification for taxpayer subsidies. But if we are going to go back into the old "family allowance" concept lets give it to parents of ALL young kids, not just those who choose to send their kids to daycare.

[Drea]

Why should the taxpayer get "stiffed" because she decides to stay home?

Very, very good point. That is why I am opposed to both the Harper and Martin models. Having children is a private decision and I don't see the justification for taxpayer subsidies. But if we are going to go back into the old "family allowance" concept lets give it to parents of ALL young kids, not just those who choose to send their kids to daycare.

We already have that too. It's called the Child Tax Benefit.

Low income parents get $273 per month per kid.

Even at my income level I still get $27 per month for one kid.

If I were still a single mother and my child was still daycare age I would need a partial subsidy to help me make it.

Would you, as a taxpayer, rather pay me $1500 per month to stay at home on welfare or would you rather partially subsidize my daycare so I can go out and earn $40,000 per year (I'm currently paying about $8,000 in tax) so that I can be a contributing member of society?

[Guest Warwick Green]

Would you, as a taxpayer, rather pay me $1500 per month to stay at home on welfare or would you rather partially subsidize my daycare so I can go out and earn $40,000 per year (I'm currently paying about $8,000 in tax) so that I can be a contributing member of society?

That's what government programs should be directed to. People on welfare, as an example, where there is a clear need, such as getting them into the workforce. What I am opposed to are generalized programs.

[geoffrey]

The right choice is to not give out any money, Harper knows this, he's an economist. A tax cut will be of bigger benefit, it will make more difference to more parents, especially those that are poor. That is the right choice.

The politically right choice is to hand out the money. That's what he said he'd do. He'd be a hypocrit to do anything else after attacking the Liberals on their hypocracy.

Do you care to explain these viewpoints?

Another transfer payment isn't even viable in the economic short-run, and over the long-run, it will become a further burden. That amount of money, in tax cuts, would make a bigger difference to everyone.

Let families sort out their own childcare arrangements. It's hardly the government or taxpayers responsibility to find a daycare provider for anyone. The spaces will be created when the price is high enough.

Like our dairy farming friend likes to say, why do you expect to get things so cheap? Things have a price dependant on the cost of someone to provide them. Society shouldn't bare that cost, in childcare, or in cheese. If you want your kid in daycare, pay for the daycare. If you want to stay home, pay to stay home. In either case, society has no responsibility to fund you.

The explaination of my politically right choice comment is that Harper can't go back on the $1200 handout. Not after attacking the Liberals for going back on their promises. He's got to do it, or he won't be re-elected.

[betsy]

For the past 13 years childcare advocates seemed to be doing fine with these lack of daycare spaces. How come now, all of a sudden, it's a panic situation?

Working people who works shifts and odd hours are usually the ones who don't make much money...that's why they're doing these jobs. THEY are the ones that should be helped!

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear geoffrey,

The explaination of my politically right choice comment is that Harper can't go back on the $1200 handout. Not after attacking the Liberals for going back on their promises. He's got to do it, or he won't be re-elected.

He can't back down on the $1200 but he could have used the excuse that 'the house wouldn't pass it' rather than 'I dare you to bring me down'. Seems he's betting that the opposition wouldn't want to lose the votes bought with that $1200, so they won't oppose it and have people think that it 'got taken away' by those nasty Liberals (or whomever).

August1991,

I really find ironic that those in favour of a woman's freedom to choose concerning abortion are not in favour of a woman's freedom to choose once the child is born.

They are free to choose the same actions, but will face drastically different consequences. If you wonder why punishment varies, (once upon a time, not so long ago, social ostracism was the norm for even unwed mothers) it is because most people don't equate 'the as of yet unborn' with the 42 yr old.

[shoop]

The CPC is in far better shape than the Liberals at this point. For that reason alone there won't be an election called until the five priorities have passed.

The Conservatives have a leader. They have money in the bank, instead of a debt in the millions.

The Government won't be forced into an election before the summer break. It will be ready to fight one in the fall, although the election will almost definitely be held in 2007.

Your take on an election forced by the opposition this early isn't credible.

A four point gain by the Conservatives over the January election results would mean a majority for them.

Are the Liberals willing to take the risk they can avoid such a relatively small swing with an interim leader, no time to prepare a major policy overhaul and a *potential* backlash over forcing an early election? (I am being charitable in saying potential. I don't think childcare is an issue potential swing voters will see as a deciding factor. Therefore, an election forced this year would more likely be about the desire for the stability of a majority government rather than a "referendum" on childcare.)

The pickup of Emerson and keeping Milliken as Speaker are testaments to Harper's shrewdness. Now the Government survives if they can get any one of the opposition parties onside for any given vote.

Under the currrent situation, how could all three of the Bloq, NDP and Liberals think an election would be in each of their best interest?

Also give Jack Layton a little credit. Remember that his plan is to replace the Liberals as official opposition. He'd prefer an election called when the Liberals are at a low point, i.e. not when the Liberals would think it would be in their best interest.

Remember Martin's first speech from the throne? He actually feared he might be defeated on it. Contrast that with Harper's. He quietly worked with Layton and Duceppe. The speech from the throne marked the start of a new era in government, not the start of an embarrassing, unstable minority that accomplished nothing. (i.e. Martin's minority.)

As soon as the Liberals have a front man they'll take him down as long as they're not completely tanked in the polls.

If it says nothing else it says that he has moxy, that much is for sure. In a liberal (little l on purpose, Liberals, NDP and BQ are all liberal to differing extents) dominated house he's leveraging his minority position against the Liberals' tendency to live and die by the polls and I'm not sure its as wise as you say. All I can say is that if this is the road Harper is taking he had better start his fundraising now.

To people that might have voted conservative or did it says a lot. To the rest its another message lost because they don't care. And because the Liberals know that the folks that don't care likely outnumber those who do they're probably willing to gamble that people will not only grudgingly go back to the polls, but also vote against the agenda that caused yet another election instead of the party that forced it again.

[August1991]

The explaination of my politically right choice comment is that Harper can't go back on the $1200 handout. Not after attacking the Liberals for going back on their promises. He's got to do it, or he won't be re-elected.

That's clear. I agree.

Let families sort out their own childcare arrangements. It's hardly the government or taxpayers responsibility to find a daycare provider for anyone. The spaces will be created when the price is high enough.

I have no problem with letting each family or parent sort out day care arrangements as he/she/they see best.

But I don't see why they should assume all the burden of having a child. More particularly, I don't see why a woman should bear so much of the cost of having a child.

The annual $1200 is not going to compensate for all the costs of a child, but it helps.

Why should we collectively share the cost of having children? Many reasons. Let me give three. At present, we don't put the cost of education solely on parents. Most animals raise their young in collectives. Would you have taken the risk to let your parents solely pay for your upbringing?

We live in a civilized society and the Conservatives' child care policy shares (partly) the burden of having children with others. The policy is a direct sharing from all to parents, without any middlepeople.

Curiously, the Tory policy returns to the very popular, simple Liberal policy of 1950s Baby Bonus Cheques. Trudeau's Social Engineers and Flow Charts revised, adjusted, changed and ultimately eliminated those cheques. If you want to know where the Liberal Party has gone wrong, there's your answer.

Harper (like King and St-Laurent) understands that putting money in people's hands is the best way to help them.

[August1991]

August1991,

I really find ironic that those in favour of a woman's freedom to choose concerning abortion are not in favour of a woman's freedom to choose once the child is born.

They are free to choose the same actions, but will face drastically different consequences. If you wonder why punishment varies, (once upon a time, not so long ago, social ostracism was the norm for even unwed mothers) it is because most people don't equate 'the as of yet unborn' with the 42 yr old.

First, this idea is not mine. It comes from Kate McMillan at smalldeadanimals who wrote in response to a James Travis column in the Toronto Star.

Second, the NDP (Canadian progressives) defend vigourously a pregnant woman's freedom to choose whether to have a child or not. They want to ensure that such a woman is not unduly pushed in either direction in this choice.

At the same time, the NDP (Canadian progressives) want to subsidize day care, and in effect skew a woman's decision about whether to stay at home or not.

I agree, Thelonious, that a woman is still free to choose. It's just that one choice is deliberately costly.

However you slice this, the Old-Style Left's social engineering instincts explain this incoherence. These so-called progressive people genuinely want to help "working" women because they think "working" women are better than stay-at-homes, and face a more difficult life.

By adopting Libertarian arguments (SSM, marijuana), the Modern Left has put itself into an ideological quagmire. If people are free to choose to marry whom they want, then shouldn't women be free to stay at home too? Are workers not free to choose to change their class?