Share
Email this to your friends.
Feedback
We'd love to hear your opinion. Your comments won't be posted on the website.
Read More
Hasty Conservative EI Changes Underline Need for Greater Clarity »
May 24, 2012
OTTAWA— Liberal Human Resources & Skills Development and Labour critic Rodger Cuzner made the following [...]
spRED Tour: Mark Eyking in Southern Ontario »
May 24, 2012
Sydney-Victoria MP Mark Eyking toured various communities in southern Ontario as part of Liberals’ spRED [...]
Liberals Call for Fair By-election in Etobicoke Centre »
May 24, 2012
OTTAWA— Former Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj today challenged Prime Minister Harper to call a by-election [...]
Since no one appears to have posted for a bit, I’ll grab the bull by the horns. I was just reading how a Tory MP wants to open up the abortion debate by giving fetus’s rights. It appears to me that the vast majority, if not all, pro-lifers have strong religious beliefs. To me it indicates a religious belief that is being pushed on everyone. They believe that everyone has a soul, but when exactly does the soul enter the body to make it human? Is it at conception, or at birth. What about those who don’t believe in souls, or god, or heaven, or earth. I sit firmly in the pro-choice seat. Let women follow their beliefs.
Catherine: We can all get hung up on when is the beginning of life but I do believe that there are practical considerations that must be recognized.
If a woman has been raped or if the child has known deformities or defects, then I would think the woman and her doctor should have the final say if it is in the first trimester.
If it is later than the first trimester, then to me it is more complicated and I would leave that to other experts.
But it would strike me that if we give women the right to choose in the first trimester that a good deal of the issues will be resolved.
CATHERINE: You are very brave to bring this up. It is, and will always be, one of the most contentious issues humans have faced. But it appears that some conservative MPs are determined to open the debate again and so, like it or not, it will come to the forefront, and we will need to have a position and it will need to be discussed.
MY POSITION: I am anti-abortion and I am pro-choice. Sounds contradictory, I know, but I have never felt it so. I believe we should do everything possible to avoid abortions. Whether legally “human life” or not, a fetus is beyond question, life and life should be preserved. Every possible opportunity should be provided to women that wish to carry to term. But, ultimately, it is not, and never can be, my choice. I am a man. Neither should it be a decision made by husbands, family, community, church, or country. It is, and must remain, a women’s personal choice. If a women chooses to abort, all the kings horses and all the kings men…can’t really stop her.
RE RELIGION: Respectfully, I caution you on attempting to tie the issue to one of religion. While I believe you are correct that pro-life advocates tend to be fundamentally religious, there are many pro-lifers that are not. There are also many religious people that believe that a women has the right to choose. I think trying to make the discussion about religion is distracting and more divisive (if that’s possible) than just dealing with it for what it is – a legal question.
BACKGROUND: Canada started with abortion completely illegal and yet convictions under abortion law were few and far between. PM Trudeau and the Liberals introduced a bill (The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69) that was passed on May 14, 1969, which provided for abortions when the health of the woman was in danger as determined by a three-doctor hospital committee. The biggest problem with that law was that the term “health of the woman” was never fully or properly defined. This led to different interpretations by different committees, hospitals and regions, and different availability and costs. To fight what he felt was an unfair and unjust law, Dr. Henry Morgentaler began openly defying the law in the early 70’s. This eventually led to R. v. Morgentaler where the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 5-2 that the law violated a woman’s right to security of person under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is important to note a few things about this ruling: Religion was never mentioned; the majority opinion mostly dealt with the “unfairness” of the way the law was applied; it did not focus on fetal rights.
Academics noted that the government could potentially reinstate the abortion law if it could overcome the “manifest unfairness” created by the administrative procedure.
However, in a her concurring opinion in R. v. Morgentaler, Justice Bertha Wilson wrote: “The decision whether to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision, a matter of conscience. I do not think there is or can be any dispute about that. The question is: whose conscience? Is the conscience of the woman to be paramount or the conscience of the state? I believe, for the reasons I gave in discussing the right to liberty, that in a free and democratic society it must be the conscience of the individual.” (An interesting aside…Justice Wilson was married to “Reverend” John Wilson)
A few subsequent case in the Supreme Court have dealt with the issue of fetal rights. Notably Tremblay v. Daigle 1989, where the court found that a… fetus has no legal status in Canada as a person, either in Canadian common law or in Quebec civil law.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? To me, on a legal level…nothing has changed in Canadian law since the Mogantaler ruling that would change the decision of the Supreme Court. But, if we begin granting “human life” status to a fetus, that could well change. And this is the agenda of the conservative MPs. They will say they are not raising the big “A” question again, but we all know that’s what they are laying the groundwork for. I’m afraid this is part of the “hidden agenda” we have heard so much about. Can we stop them? Will they go ahead with this? Will Harper do what he did in 2008 and say “no we won’t go there”? Will all the parties allow MPs to vote their conscience instead of whipping the vote?
I don’t know. But, what every single pro-lifer needs to know is…all the kings horses, all the kings men…can’t stop a woman from aborting. The focus should be elsewhere.
I apologize for the length of this post. But I believe it is important, if we are going to have this discussion, that all participants are informed. It is such an emotional issue and it is best if we step back and carefully research and understand the issue. It is fundamentally a legal question and that is how it needs to be discussed and decided.
That’s what I want!! A law that automatically throws an elected official out of office if it can be proven that they told a deliberate lie to Canadians! Immediate impeachment!
You know Catherine I am watching this Helena Guergis thing very carefully. If you fired someone without cause in business, the law would be completely on the employee’s side.
For sure the judge would ask about how you had confronted the employee with the details of the infraction and how you had worked with the employee to help him/her make improvements. Steven Harper’s behaviour is unbelievable for anyone who has worked in the business world.
We really should hold our politicians to these sane standards. I have been waiting and waiting for Helena to start the proceedings. I would love her to win a multi-million dollar suit against Stephen Harper. He really needs to get his swelled head set straight.
Let’s keep in mind that the Election Act gives the leader the power to endorse MP candidate. I think that in case of Helena Guergis Mr. Harper exercised this right. Endorsement is not a formality but a privilege granted by the party. Therefore, I’m not sure if courts would treat this case the same way as a wrongful dismissal.
P.S. Sorry for the posting in two places – couldn’t delete.
Jarek: I realize that politics is not governed by the same laws as business. Nevertheless, Stephen Harper has damaged Helena Guergis’s career with unfair, wrong accusations. I don’t know if there is a precedent for this type of behavior. Most Prime Ministers will demote or move Ministers they don’t like without casting aspersions on their morality. The mores of our society usually require that you talk to the person about what you have found and then listen to their side of the story. You should not fire them through the newspaper. I think that the Conservatives will try to settle this out of court because otherwise I think it will get pretty messy.
Mike: It will be interesting, indeed. Now, when I’ve read 32 pages of The Statement of Claim I see that it can rock the boat.
“The Plaintiff claims as against the Defendant, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper (“Harper”), for conspiracy, defamation, misfeasance in public office, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and negligence.”
Jarek: Thanks for checking this out. There may be some law that permits Prime Ministers to defame and fire their Ministers without cause but I don’t think the government wants the people to know this. Its such a departure from what the public deem as civil conduct. I think the government will make every effort to settle this out of court and let Helena life happily ever after.
Swelled head, liar. Can we all please refrain from the unnecessary attacks on our leaders.
Maybe we all need a New Years Resolution.
I tend to agree with rlaberge (although I don’t think anyone called anyone a liar – the statement was “… if it can be proven that they told a deliberate lie…” – and “swelled head” well, not so bad really…but, it is the principal that counts).
It is not a good idea to ‘name-call’ or to disparage our political leaders, representatives or anyone at all during political discourse, regardless of their party affiliation.
It is just as inappropriate to refer to Mr. Harper’s “swelled head” as it was for rlaberge to refer Mr. Trudeau as “saint” Pierre.
Perhaps a better turn of phrase might have been “In my opinion, Mr. Harper needs a reality check.” or “…needs to get his feet back on the ground.”. Small difference, but sounds better, yes?
The problem is, when one person throws even a tiny little piece of garbage on the street, others are likely to follow suit. Next thing you know we’re up to our armpits in it.
Two rules we should all perhaps try to keep in mind:
.Focus upon criticizing policies rather than persons.
.Refrain from using insulting, harassing, or otherwise offensive language.
Thanks Martin, well said. Remember everyone: Please note that comments are moderated with the goal of stimulating an intelligent and fruitful discussion. As such, we ask that you use language that is civil and respectful, and refrain from attacks of any kind. We reserve the right to remove or not post any comments or information that does not meet these requirements. Let’s continue to keep this a thoughtful and constructive discussion.
rlaberge: I really have trouble understanding your loyalties. You have very strong feelings against Pierre Trudeau but you jump to Stephen Harper’s defense even when his behavior has been despicable.
Either that or you though his handling of the termination of Helena Guergis was in good taste.
It’s evident to me that rlaberger is a Conservative. There are no restrictions on this particular forum, so pretty much anyone can post.
I just hope this forum doesn’t get as caustic as others have, but I doubt it.
Mike: I do not know the party affiliation (if any) of rlaberge or where the loyalties lie. But it doesn’t really matter. Remember that this is a “public” forum and all Canadians are invited to comment and participate. I am sure from time to time we will have Conservative, NDP, Green, and Bloc, members visiting the site and leaving their comments. We will also have those that are not affiliated, that are searching and trying to learn about issues and ideas and what the Liberal party stands for. We need to attract all of these people, not repel them.
Remember also Mike that you and I are both Liberal members but we don’t agree on everything, and neither should we necessarily. That is the point of discussion and debate; to question, to learn, and to adjust each other’s and our own thinking. Since joining the discussions here on liberal.ca I have twice changed my opinion on major topics and I hope I may have influenced others to re-evaluate their stance on certain issues.
What is important is that we all remember to keep our discussions focused on policy and not on individual people, that we listen to each other’s ideas and respect that they may not be the same as our own, that we put forward our ideas respectfully and with the goal of convincing others of their validity but keeping an open mind and accepting that we may have something to learn as well.
Martin: This may come as a surprise to you. I brought up a topic about Helena Guergis and we are talking about everything else but.
Criticising a person’s vocabulary is fine but I would like it to be couched in some discussion of the topic.
Well Mike, my first response today was to rlaberge and his request that we refrain from personal attacks on the Prime Minister – I agree.
My second response was to your questioning of rlabege’s loyalties – which was the lead-in sentence and made up the majority of the post to which I was responding – I don’t think it is correct to question anyone’s affiliation or loyalties on this site.
As far as my opinion of the Helena Guergis situation, I don’t really have one. But if pressed, I suppose I agree with you that what Mr. Harper did ‘appears’ to be incorrect. However, I mostly view it as an internal CPC issue and therefore not worth my attention. I would certainly have an opinion if the leader of the LPC attempted a similar move – but to the best of knowledge, none have.
Let’s keep in mind that the Election Act gives the leader the power to endorse MP candidate. I think that in case of Helena Guergis Mr. Harper exercised this right. Endorsement is not a formality but a privilege granted by the party. Therefore, I’m not sure if courts would treat this case the same way as a wrongful dismissal.
Truthfully Mike I don’t know my party affiliation.
I am all for social programs to help those less fortunate, but only when we can afford it.
I don’t believe in tax breaks for large corporations. Trickle down doesn’t work.
A small military I don’t have a problem with. When NATO/UN calls we should have something to offer.
I think Harper’s recent attempts at expanding trade with China is great. Maybe we need to find a way along with other western countries to link human rights and a floating Chinese currency to the deal but the premise of more trade with China is good.
I absolutely don’t agree with special rights /treaties for Indians. I don’t think it works for either party.
Mostly I believe in integrity. This is where the Liberal party lost me. Too many Chretien election promise flip/flops. GST bad- now GST good. Free trade bad- now we’ll expand it with Mexico. Helicopters bad- now good.
I got the feeling Paul Martin would have told me absolutely anything to get elected.
I wish the Liberal party would just come clean with Canadians and say we made some questionable election promises but never again. We will be the most honest party of the bunch. I, and I believe alot of other Canadians, would appreciate that and feel a lot more comfortable voting for them.
So that’s a few of my views. I don’t expect any or all of you to agree with me but that’s how I feel.
rlaberge: You know I am beginning to wonder about your loyalties. You have very strong views against Pierre Trudeau but you jump to the defense of Stephen Harper when his behavior has been despicable.
Either that or you think the way he terminated Helena Guergis was in good taste.
Mike, I’m sorry to hear about you school board problems, unfortunately most of us have these problems. my son had “international languages” from grades 1-3. French wasn’t started until grade 4. The first 3 years were wasted with mandarin (my in-laws speak Cantonese) or Spanish when they should have been learning the other national language. In my view it was a complete waste of time! People have admitted to me that they just vote for the first names on the list for school boards. I think it was Oscar Wilde who said that votes should be weighed and not counted. I realize that education is a provincial responsibility but could the Feds not make some rules to guide the provinces? Make education more uniform across the country. Here’s a long shot, voters have to pass a current events and civics course before being allowed to vote. Sorry, just venting my frustration at people falling for Harper’s lies ( coalition gov’ts are a viable possibility).
Hi Catherine: I don’t think we need a national standard for secondary education, I recognize that different provinces require different standards.
I don’t think it matters exactly what you learn as long as you learn the three Rs (Reading, Writing and Rithmetic) plus a few artsy things that you happen to enjoy. We need kids educated so they have learned how to learn so they can deal with all the changes they will go through in their working lives.
Now about qualifying to vote. We have a serious problem with young people today that they are too busy to vote or too busy to learn about the issues so when they do vote they may be not looking at things right. My kids all voted Conservative to get their $100 monthly cheque for each child under 6. I tried to explain about Global Warming but their eyes just glazed over.
I think the Liberal Party will have to have some stuff like that for the young people if we want them to come over to our side. Michael Ignatieff was actually very good with young people, I really thought he would do better with them.
To Mike, you’re missing something. Even 15 years ago children were thought to be “incapable” when it wasn’t true. With testing, diagnosing and accommodation kids can go on to university today who were drop-outs as shortly as 15 years ago. The under privileged are the group that needs the early childhood support the most for numerous reasons, and the sooner the better! But also, early education has the benefit of recognizing what children to watch for extra assistance. Basically, everyone’s, not just children’s, wellbeing shouldn’t be dependent on their income!
One of the problems with this blog is it is difficult to see what you are commenting on. I know I talked about helping children who needed better nutrition with a plan that was independent of early childhood education.
Now you are introducing another point about identifying special needs early. I have 6 grand children in our Board and it spends most of its special needs money on gifted and French immersion education. If you have reading or writing problems, you get sent to the back of the line and you may never get help.
I won’t mention the name of our Board, but if I child gets identified with a problem when they are 4, they are out of luck.
We are trying to vote one of the trustees off the Board, but she has got in twice by splitting the vote because there each time were 3 people running.
Catherine: One of the problems with this blog is it is difficult to see what you are commenting on. I know I talked about helping children who needed better nutrition with a plan that was independent of early childhood education.
Now you are introducing another point about identifying special needs early. I have 6 grand children in our Board and it spends most of its special needs money on gifted and French immersion education. If you have reading or writing problems, you get sent to the back of the line and you may never get help.
I won’t mention the name of our Board, but if I child gets identified with a problem when they are 4, they are out of luck.
We are trying to vote one of the trustees off the Board, but she has got in twice by splitting the vote because there each time were 3 people running.
Catherine: I sent an email to Art Eggleton’s Office and received this report http://www.yourhealthandmine.net/Child%20Care%20Report.pdf
The Report starts with the assumption that Early Child Care is good with primary research support from Fraser Mustard.
There are no details on province by province. Rather they compare us with other countries of the world and suggest that a 0.5% or GDP increase to Early Child Care (about $8B per year) would bring us up to standard.
Rather than depend solely on the late Fraser Mustard and studies in the US, I think it would be wise to study the province of Quebec and see how things have turned out for their youth later in life as a result of Early Childhood Care.
OK, lets suppose they can show its worth it. Now lets say Ontario’s cost will be $2B per year. Now who is going to pay for this and how will the money be raised? Remember Ontario already has a $16B deficit. This must be worked out before people start beating the drum. We can’t have a policy that does not recognize the cost, benefits and where the money will come from.
One final point, the report devotes several pages to the Aboriginals. From my reading, the present Reserve system with many Reserves remote from Social Services does not lend it self to early child development.
Hi Mike, yes, my son was in a very structured daycare where he had weekly swimming lessons and skating in winter. But this kind of experience, education and structure are what’s needed for the poorer in society. I’ve always been able to supply what my son needs, the poor can’t and that makes a structured daycare even more important for them. An example is that my son required a computer for school with specialized programs. It was going to take the Toronto school board over a year to supply it. In my buying a laptop and the required programs I got him the help he needed immediately and left funds to help another child all the sooner. But there shouldn’t be such a waiting period leaving any child to fall further behind. The poor don’t have the resources to start their children off, just their being poor gives them a handicap. This also includes the quality of food that children require and too many don’t get! I want a fair and just society and am willing to pay for it! I like being able to sleep at night.
Catherine: You have been able to provide well for your son and you have a good heart that cares for mothers who can’t provide like you have.
All of us in this blog who were born before the computer and we made it through pre-school without one. In fact we made it through the first 4 years of life without pre-school and did fine. Our mothers cared for us, we had toys and it seemed to work.
Along comes Fraser Mustard and he says we need this early childhood education. He never provided much evidence for this but he did get a ton of people to buy in.
I agree with you about nutrition. But we don’t have to build a huge $2,000 per month system to feed our children. I think there are much cheaper solutions for feeding our toddlers properly.
I would feel a lot better if this thing was priced out. Its not going to cost the Federal Government very much but it will cost billions for the provinces. That’s still you and I. I would like a figure as to what the average tax payer is going to have to kick in to pay for this.
Some people are saying that it gets the mother back to work sooner. Well why doesn’t she want to pay for it?
Mike: You sound like a very lucky man Mike. You had a mother. And your family income allowed her to stay home and take of you. And that’s what she wanted to. And apparently she loved and nurtured you. And you had toys to play with. You are indeed a lucky man.
Please accept that not everyone, what? 50 years ago, and certainly not today is that lucky. We don’t all have that same start to our lives. That’s why social programs exist. To take of the ones that might otherwise get left behind.
Fraser Mustard was certainly not the founder of the idea that early childhood education is a good thing. And to say that he did not research or provide evidence is simply untrue and unfair. If you need proof of the benefits, start by googling “early childhood education benefits” and read a few articles. There are literally thousands of them, but in the meantime here are a couple of statistics for you:
. Chicago’s publicly-funded Child-Parent Centers have served almost 100,000 3- and 4-year-olds since 1967. Researchers tracked 989 of those children and 550 similar children not in the program for 14 years. The children who did not participate were 70 percent more likely to be arrested for a violent crime by age 18. This program also cut child abuse and neglect.
. In Ypsilanti, Michigan, 3- and 4-year-olds from low-income families who were randomly assigned to a group that did not receive preschool who were five times more likely to have become chronic lawbreakers by age 27 than those who were assigned to the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation’s Perry Preschool program
And yes, there are cheaper ways to deal with nutrition. But our governments don’t do that either. I donate $30 a month to in-school meal programs in Toronto because we have hungry kids at school. I paid for that by cutting out my daily latte. Had enough left over to sponsor 2 children in Africa through plan Canada. Don’t tell me the money isn’t available to take care of our children. It’s there. We just need the collective will to do what’s right.
Martin: Yes, I should have done the lookup. The Chicago story is very encouraging.
But we do need to set priorities. There is a big difference between $30 per month to provide proper nutrition and $2000 per month to provide Early Childhood education. So lets deal with the nutrition on its own, I don’t think we need to wait until we have a full blown early childhood education system to address that.
I also think it would be wise to work out the numbers for each province. The Chicago story talks about a 70% increase in the possibility of a child getting arrested for a violent crime before the age of 18. Now in Ontario, what would that reduction work out to? I am not asking you to work this all out. It would seem that the Liberal Party should have worked this out already.
You seem to slip in and out of mentioning the benefits for women who want to get back to their job but can’t afford Day Care. I don’t think we need National Day Care for that. I think we could come up with a formula that recognizes the income from your husband and gives you a cheque in the mail according to your needs to help you get back to work.
We are talking about billions of dollars here. I would be appalled if the Liberal Party has been advocating this for 15 years and has not worked this all out somewhere.
I’m sure they have Mike (at least I too hope so!). I guess the thing to do is to contact the correct MP or Mr. Rae and ask if this is still official Liberal policy. If it is then there must be some reports studies etc. that should be available.
Martin: This is the type of thing where it would be nice to have an interested senior liberal party member tuned in who could help us.
Anyway, Ken Dryden is gone now. They don’t have an official critic for National Child Care but they do have Senator Art Eggleton who is the critic for Social Services.
So I have sent him a request through his web site for information on what we have been discussing. This will be a good test on how sincere the Liberal Party is about forming a connection with us.
Ken Dryden must have had this stuff summarized somewhere.
sorry to jump off the talk guys but can anyone remember a brayn hunt worked for Trudeau? and after that worked for eastern con, thats the guy we should have here chating yes he is older but he knows how stuff was run better then anyone on here and still active liberal
Re: Daycare. In the effort to keep details accurate, 10 years ago my son was in daycare. Back then an infant cost $1,500/month. This is in Toronto and it has to be around $2,000 by now. I’m not rich, but not poor either and would be more than happy to pay more taxes because I understand the benefits of helping the needy and the benefits of early childhood education. I would be interested in knowing the ratio of donations to income between the middle class and the rich. Does anyone know?
Hi Catherine: Yes, you are probably right. My daughter was paying $200 per week for a Mom & Pop operation that provided meals and toys for the children. I think you are probably referring to a place that provided more structured play like a Early Years or Montessori.
But when you come up with a figure like $2,000 per month, consider that a minimum level if the government gets involved. So this has to be priced out province by province before we start up the music on how much we like this idea.
I know Ontario has made a huge commitment to Early Childhood Education. Its in the Billions. Meanwhile we have kids graduating at the other end with no jobs. Its a bit like religion. You either believe in it or you don’t. I did not start school until Kindergarten and I don’t see how I suffered for it. Now we have children starting school at 3 years old. They are barely toilet trained and still require naps. I do understand that kids might learn social skills when they are three so that gives them a leg up. But when they are 22 coming out of university, does that extra year of JK really make a difference? I don’t know.
I am guessing that rich people probably give more to charity than poor people, but I am only guessing. I am not sure how that fits in with your previous points.
happy new year one and all …. reading an earlier comment, from Mike I believe, he referenced Federal responsibilities vs. provincial, paraphrasing here ….. which leads me to my comment, Canadians need to be better educated in what is Federal, Provincial and in some areas of the country, Regional and Municipal responsibilities …. don’t know how many times I have to correct my own adult children ….. just a thought
Chris
Chris: Maybe you could start by educating us right in this blog. What are the various responsibilities and jurisdictions?
Martin: I am sure you are aware that Day Care costs about $200 per week. At the web link you provided we have the government offering $100 per month to help out.
The Liberal Party has tried 7 times to introduce National Day Care but have never been able to get the provinces (other than Quebec) to go along because the provinces have to pay for it.
I have said that people who feel that government provided Day Care should promote this within their provinces.
I don’t think every province has to have the same standard of Day Care as the next one. Quebec should be allowed to do it one way and British Columbia in another way.
I personally believe that the Economy and Global Warming are the two most important issues. I think we have to have some priorities and I would put National Day Care pretty close to the bottom unless you can find $200 per week that the Federal Government could put toward this plan.
Mike: Just because an idea is not immediately adopted doesn’t mean it should be dropped from policy. National health care wasn’t built in day either. I’m not sure where the “7 times” is coming from but, all the more reason to stick to our guns. Obviously, successive liberal leaders and membership have supported this idea as important for Canada – we need to stick to our policies, not abandon them in a bid to get elected.
As far as the cost, first of all, no one is expecting or suggesting that we immediately go out and create every day care spot all at once. All the previous liberal plans called for a phased approach – the Paul Martin plan called for $5B over five years. The cost of the conservative’s Universal Child Care Benefit plan ($100 a month), is about $2.6B annually. So it actually cost more than the $5B over five years Liberal child-care plan.
Second, this is not a program that would be fully funded by the federal government. It would be split by the parents, who already have to spend (as you say) $200 a week, plus money from the provinces and then the federal government. What it does is make the whole thing affordable and fair for everyone. In Quebec, for example, the family chips in $7 a day.
There are many more ethereal factors to take into account: Better childhood education grows a better, stronger workforce. Better early diet and health monitoring saves millions down the road in health expenses. Highly trained and employable parents freed up to re-enter the workforce thereby contributing more to the economy and government revenues. New teachers and early educators will be needed, creating more jobs. I’ll leave quantifying all that the professionals.
And, it is simply a fair and equitable way of dealing with the population. All children should have the same opportunities regardless of how much mommy and/or daddy makes.
As far as climate change or the economy taking precedence, I don’t buy into the conservative “either/or” approach to spending. This is a rich country. Managed properly, we can afford to treat our people fairly and equitably. But if we’re going to play the either/or game, the money that the country will spend building new prisons, to support an unnecessary crime bill, would more than pay for a national health care program. And don’t get me started about F-35’s.
Martin: I can’t find the clip on 7 times. The best one I can find is from the Toronto Star http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/education/article/759032–daycare-tops-liberal-agenda which refers to delaying National Day Care when they were in power even when they had a surplus.
Yes, I have read that article. And I agree with what Mr. Ignatieff said at the time:
. Ignatieff called child care “an investment” in productivity and social justice for the country.
. “It’s also the best anti-poverty program. I want every single child in Canada to have the opportunity to get a square meal when they come to daycare; to get loving care and tender care,” he said.
. “A lot of children in our country, we don’t like to admit it, start in very turbulent difficult environment at home. The great thing about these programs is they give kids an equal start.”
.”You can slay a deficit and you can do social justice.”
.Ignatieff argues, echoing the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and others, that a national child-care program actually helps the economy and the country’s long-term productivity.
Can’t say it any better myself!
Martin: How is the Quebec economy chugging along now that they have government day care?
Hello Mike,
For one, I feel thinking of a national day care strategy seems to stray away from federal politics. People need to feel the link why the federal government would want to support national day care. Do I find a day care strategy reasonable. Yes. Should it be totally federal, no.
Regarding how Quebec is chugging with its economy, I believe I wouldn’t lay all of its economic woes on their day care strategy. I find Quebec, (I’m not from Quebec btw..) has been enlightening on how it plots its own course, doing many things that are people-oriented such as the day care, gun registry rebuttal to the feds and others. What would be good would be to have a study on how their daycare strategy has aided their people and their province.
We know we are speaking of billions for a strategy but the feds are giving away $2.6 billion as Martin mentionned on their monthly cheques.. so that counts for something..
We need to remind ourselves that a daycare strategy could be well a moot point as there may be so many more concerns to deal with once the neo-conservatives have finished their term.
I have no idea Mike. Why do you ask? The purpose of a daycare program is not to improve an economy – although that can be a side effect – but that would be a long term benefit, not measurable after just a few years. Although I did read somewhere a while back that Quebec has the highest number of working mothers, so there must be a tax revenue benefit there. Not to mention less welfare for single mother situations.
If you are suggesting that the Quebec daycare program is ruining their economy, please feel free to present the numbers to support that, but I doubt it really has that much overall effect.
Again, and with Mr. Ignatieff, I do not feel that Canada has to sacrifice social justice to balance the budget. That is conservative rubbish design to further their ideologies. We just need to find ways to finance our social programs. Those do exist and they are viable.
We currently spend $2.4B a year giving families $100 a month towards daycare. That money us not nearly enough to pay for daycare and so in many, if not most, cases it simply goes to the general household expenses. That’s wasting money.
Here’s a thought – with more and more responsibility being transferred to the provinces, i.e. healthcare funding, let’s figure out why we need a federal goverment at all.
Christopher: Well we do need a Federal Government for things like National Defence, Representation on the UN, Trade Agreements, Equalization, Justice and the Post Office.
But it does seem that just about everything the Conservatives touch they completely screw up.
We have Peter Kent withdrawing from Kyoto when most Canadians support the agreement. We had the federal government extending their time in Afghanistan when most Canadians wanted the troops to come home. We have a federal government disregarding the plight of the Palestinians when most Canadians support them. We have Mega Prisons under construction when most Canadians don’t want them. We have the F-35 ……. well you get the idea.
I think if we had a Federal Government that represented the people we would support the concept but the truth is they don’t and this is the problem.
I was being somewhat facetious, but the role is changing. Australia manages quite nicely with a third of the number of MPs as we have.
If we can redefine the role of the Federal government, it would be easier to redefine Liberal Party values.
We have the technology to involve the People on major issues. Perhaps that’s where we should focus – bringing true democracy to the country.
Chris: For one thing, National Day Care is not a Federal mandate so I don’t know why we keep talking about that one.
Now you talk about bringing democracy to the people. Well about 18 months ago I sent $100 to Libby Davies in the NDP because she had the courage to take a stand on an issue that I care for. I have been getting Christmas Cards and news bulletins from her ever since.
I give to the Liberal Party every month and they don’t even know I exist. You go to the EDA meetings and they gather in cliques, its worse than high school. No one says hello, they want you to sit down and say nothing.
I went to a number of Michael Ignatieff’s visits to Oakville and he basically said his piece and got back on the bus, there was no opportunity for questions.
The Liberal party does not want democracy for the grass roots. They only want your money. That’s why nobody from the top of the Liberal Party could care less about what we say in this blog.
I too took out a membership and contributed what I could. I’ve never belonged to any political party before, but had the perhaps naive hope that something major would change after the spanking the party took in the last election.
I know the party has people that read these blogs, and hope that more happens than just more damned meetings and committees.
Change is happening around the world, often fueled by social media. If the Party is too rooted in the past to pay attention, then it deserves to be thrown into the history books.
Mike: You have stated a few times now that “National Daycare is not a Federal mandate”. I’m not sure where that is coming from. The term “National Daycare” by definition must fall under the federal government. There is not currently a program nationally, but there is nothing stopping a progressive government for instituting one. The provinces have failed miserably in this area providing a patchwork of programs with different results regionally across Canada. The health and education of our young is definitely a responsibility of the federal government. As such, a national program is needed to provide a consistent, fair approach across the board. This is good read on the subject: http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0420-e.htm
Hi Mike,
I will have to respectfully disagree with your comment. The Party pays close attention to comments on the blog, both from its members and from Canadians. This blog is for members and Canadians to express themselves and this particular article has seen very thoughtful discussion and interesting suggestions. These are noted, shared, and discussed internally. You are being heard and your input is important to us.
Andre: What is the Liberal Party doing with our idea about a Financial Transactions Tax. It would be so refreshing to hear back from the Liberal Party as to the Pros and Cons of such a Tax. I have no idea of how much idea this tax would generate and whether it would have an adverse effect on pension funds etc.
Is there someone up there studying this proposal. By when might we hear back either here or on the Liberal Web Site with their thoughts?
André: I sincerely hope that the ideas being presented and discussed in this and other forums are being noted and discussed and that we are being “heard” – anything less would mean we’re wasting our time.
However, it does seem to be a bit of a one way street at this point – we provide ideas and discussion points and send them off into the ether and ”hope” we are being heard. But we really don’t “know”, do we? Because there is nothing (yet, at least) coming back down the street. Some of our ideas may actually impact policy, but how will we know? Some of our ideas may be summarily dismissed but we don’t know that either and so in our ignorance, we continue those discussions.
With the exception of Kirsty Duncan who is very active both with blogs and associated responses and on the community page (Go Kirsty!) and yourself, we hear nothing from the “us” that our input is so important to. Except, of course, when that “us” was asking for money – then we heard from everyone, repeatedly!
I think it is understandable therefore, that you are going to receive some feelings of disenfranchisement from the contributors on this site. I think this needs to be addressed and I hope it is being worked on. There needs to be some quantifiable way of “knowing” we are being heard. Simply telling us that isn’t enough.
I’m afraid that Mike’s assessments of the LPC and grassroots relation is right on. The blog here is ignored (I think only two MP decided that it was worth to participate) by those who can make any difference. Enfamille site (members only) doesn’t seem any better. On top of it, resistance to any change prior to the Convention (my impression) is growing. Ron Hartling (LPC President candidate) in the middle of May sounded alarm bells calling for an immediate action to address the worst defeat in LPC history and nothing was done. In his document, Ron said “Anyone who imagines that we can wait until the Biennial Convention to decide how to address our challenges needs to think again – that delay would represent 20% of the time remaining to us before 2015 election. Such procrastination would be suicidal”. Let’s hope that the leadership is working 24 hours a day to address the challenges we are facing. They are so busy that there is no time to keep us – ordinary members posted.
Jarek: You know I sent a small donation to Ron Hartling’s Campaign and he eventually sent me a personal note. He is also the original developer of EnFamille and is a supporter of the Forum concept for gathering ideas.
People can say that the Liberal Forums only have a small participation and they would be right but that’s because nobody at the top pays any attention. I think if the Forum concept was officially supported and used by the Liberal Party, there would be a much higher participation particularly among the young people who we are trying to attract.
Christopher: These are good questions and ones that we should be addressing in policy and platform as the Liberal party. One of the platforms historically of the conservatives (the “right”) is to advocate for smaller federal government and transfer more authority and power to the provinces. Decentralization of government to the separate parts of the federation. Taken to an extreme we end up with some form of “sovereignty association”; separate independent states under a small centralized umbrella. This is one vision of Canada. But, it is not mine.
To me the strength of Canada lies in our diversity. We are many cultures and many regions from coast to coast and, acting as “one”, we are stronger. The co-operative federation that is Canada is able to support different regions through difficult times with the knowledge that they will give back when able.
• Federal-provincial equalization payments for example, bring a level playing field and “fairness” across the country.
• In these times of global free-trade and trading blocs, bigger not smaller, is better.
• While the provinces are responsible for the details of spending on such things as health, the federal government enforces the basic rules and makes sure that each region’s people have access to the same level of care.
• The Charter of Rights and Freedoms must apply equally across the country and cannot be administered haphazardly at the whim of regional authorities.
In my opinion a strong, centralized government is key to the continued success of Canada.
Now, I started this off by saying that the conservatives support “smaller” government. A misconception (and one constantly pushed forward by the conservatives) is that the corollary to that must be the other parties (the middle and the left) must therefore support “larger” government. This is not true and is something that the Liberal party needs to make abundantly clear to the Canadian voters. There is a balance and striking (and holding) that balance should be our goal.
Personally, I am strongly opposed to the coming increase in the number of seats in parliament. We don’t need them. This is not the best way to balance regional representation and it is no small coincidence that the conservatives are pushing for this solution when adding the new seats they are proposing stands to benefit them the most.
Martin: I am with you on most of your points. The one exception is equalization.
I agree that equalization is a fair thing to help a province with temporary problems. But if a province requires equalization payments 5 years in a row then they are not taking the steps to fix their problems and are in fact using the equalization payments as a means of hanging onto wrong ideas for running their province.
Further provinces that are receiving equalization payments should not be enjoying extra benefits such as provincial day care when other provinces can’t afford it.
That’s what I’m talkin’ about! Mike for Prime Minister! :)
To rlaberge: Yes, numbers do matter, BUT, by the time the Liberals get into power again there won’t be many programs left. Therefore, no more cuts to programs, instead raise the taxes on the well off citizens, businesses and cut the rebates and incentives for businesses. People matter as well!
Catherine, I can respect your wanting to keep Canada’s social programs as is as long as they are affordable in the competive global economy in which we live. Yearning for Canada’s kinder days is simply nostalgia. Way to many low wage countries eating our manufactuing and good tax paying jobs.
Higher taxes for corporations/high earners absolutely. But don’t open new programs with the cash aka..family pack, national daycare etc….
Martin, my feelings are hurt. I don’t believe you’re allowed to do that in our modern politically correct society. You owe me a hug! :)
One of my New Year’s Resolutions that I posted on the community page (http://www.liberal.ca/activity/tag/HappyNewYear/) is “To conduct all political discourse with integrity and to respect the ideas of those I may not agree with.”
If we can both remember to do that, I think we’ll get along just fine.
My New Year’s resolution is to lose weight!!!!!
That’s a fine resolution Martin, I was a little disappointed in your previous response to rlaberge
Well, I certainly intend to live up to my promise. But, that may simply mean I do not engage with rlaberge – it’s a two way street. I am hoping that rlaberge can learn to be a bit less condescending in posts, do some research before posting opinions, and refrain from unnecessary attacks on our past leaders. We’ll see.
Well said Martin, having a deficit in the 70s and 80s was the “IN” thing. Great things were accomplished by the Liberals in those days. People have a tendency to quickly forget what has taken place since the Pearson era and all the good that happened to this country afterwards.
This is in response to rlaberge.
When the Chretien/Martin gov’t cut transfers tomthe provinces it was to pay off the deficit left by Mulroney. After it was paid off, they increased the transfers beyond what they previously were. You sound like you’re accusing the Liberals of tax and spending, yet did you know that it was a conservative gov’t that first implemented national taxes in Canada?
As for Bob Rae, when he was Ontario’s premier, he was forced to govern during a recession. Many gov’t employees were happy to have unpaid days off as opposed to losing their jobs! I can attest to first hand knowledge on that fact.
Lastly, I’ve been speaking out against tax cuts even when it affects me since Mike Harris was premier. I would most certainly pay more taxes so as not to see the homeless dead on our streets! Even though my son is beyond daycare age, I want to see a national daycare program. Too many are unable to work because they can’t afford daycare. Too many live around the poverty line because of daycare costs.
What I don’t understand is how in both the US and Canada voters are lead to believe that the Conservatives/Republicans are the better money managers when in fact it’s the Liberals/Democrats who are always getting the countries in sound financial order?!
Catherine: Its good that you are willing to pay more taxes to help the homeless. One of the problems is Corporations and millionaires are not as generous as you. I also believe that the poor are getting poorer, the middle class are staying the same while the rich are getting richer. It would seem that the time has come to reduce the gap by increasing the taxes on the rich even though they make huge campaign contributions to the Liberal Party.
Re: National Day Care. Day Care is in the Provincial jurisdiction. The Federal Liberal party has already tried 7 times to introduce National Day Care but could not get to first base because the provinces (other than Quebec) did not want to pay for it. I think 7 kicks at the cat is enough, I don’t think we should bring that one up again unless we have written agreements from all the provinces unless they are on time. Otherwise it will become just another hollow promise. I think those of us who really want government day care, should push our provincial governments for it. After all they are the ones who have to pay for it.
“The National Debt rose 1,100% under Trudeau, from 18 billion when he took office in 1968 to a debt that stood at 200 Billion in 1984″ Brian Mulroney inherited this wonderful mortgage at a time of international sky high interest rates and paid massive interest on Pierre’s gift. Brought in the GST and came against a pretty large backlash for it.
By the way, this move was the correct one.(even though someone campaigned to scrap it a little later!!)
I fault Mulroney only for not making the cuts he had to do.
As for Bob Rae, I agree he came to power at a crappy time. I think he did the correct thing.
I would say that Mulroney, Chretien, Harper and all of us had to deal with saint Pierre’s debt.
Can you imagine the wonderful Canada we could have today if not for Trudeau?
Again, the point I’m making is the numbers DO matter
Get our house in order BEFORE new social programs.
Rlaberge: I agree that the Liberals have had a mixed history on dealing with the debt. Clearly Paul Martin (with the reluctant support of Jean Chretien) was the best at reducing the debt. Brian Mulroney brought in both the GST and NAFTA which helped reduce our debt and gave tools for succeeding Prime Ministers to do the same.
I don’t think Michael Ignatieff or Bob Rae would do very well at this if they were ever in power. The economy and debt is our achillies heel. The Conservatives have and are continuing to do a lot of things wrong with the Wheat Board, Mega Prisons, Kyoto, UN Security Council etc. but I think right now people trust them over us to deal with the economy.
This Financial Transaction Tax may be helpful but I don’t think we have one person in the Party studying it because we like to focus on the Indian Reserves and Social Services. Someone at the top is going to have to start developing a strategy for dealing with our Deficits and National Debt. We can’t just sit in a corner and complain about it.
If you are going to state economic figures, please learn some economics principals. You cannot compare national debt from one year to another as a simple % increase. National debt growth is commonly calculated and charted as a percentage of GDP. At the very least your figures would have to be adjusted for inflation and population.
When Trudeau took office in 1968 Canada had a debt of $18B (24% of GDP), when he left office in 1984, that debt stood at $200B (46% of GDP), an increase of 83% in real terms. Not %1,100 – by any stretch of reason or analysis.
During that same time the national debts of most western countries grew at about the same rate as Canada’s. There are many geo-political and socio-economic reasons for this world-wide debt growth, but no small part was the simple realization that large parts of the population were being left behind and a new sense of social responsibility was on the rise.
After Trudeau, the growth in debt continued to rise, at an even faster rate, under the “conservatives”. It took 16 years under the Liberals for the debt to rise from $18B to $200B, Mulroney (a “conservative”) took it to over $550B in just 6 years. It wasn’t until 1999 (under the Liberals) that the rate started to drop and continued to do so until the Conservatives took power again in 2006. Since then the rate has started to rise again. In the last year of the Liberal, Paul Martin government, overall program funding was $175B. Last year, under Harper, it had climbed to $245B. Even if these numbers are measured against the overall growth of the Canadian economy, program spending has increased more than 25% over the five years of the Harper (a “conservative”) government.
Finally, is it really necessary to make references to Pierre Trudeau like “Saint Pierre” and “Pray to the god Pierre”? He did a lot of great things for this country, national unity, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms not to mention years of selfless public service. I don’t care if you agree with his policies or not. I don’t even care if you like him or not. Just please, show a little respect – if not for the man himself then for the members and contributors on this site. Thank you.
Martin: Thanks for your post. Very helpful. I realize you are providing an answer to a criticism of Pierre Trudeau and you have answered well, but I do think the Liberal Party is a little weak today on the economy story.
Michael Ignatieff spent most of his time challenging the government on their difficulties in forecasting the downturn properly without offering any constructive ideas of his own. He seemed to be encouraging the government to develop a stimulus program but during the election he hammered the Conservatives for increasing the debt.
I do agree with his stance on delaying the corporate tax cuts but it didn’t seem very well thought out.
Today, we get to listen to Scott Brison again challenge the government on what they are doing about our economy without regard for the problems in Europe and the US. Again I hear no suggestions from the Liberals.
I would feel so much better if Scott Brison could make some proposals on a Financial Transaction Tax or shifting our exports toward the emerging economies of the BRIC. I don’t get the feeling that anyone is working on this type of thing.
Mike: I was mainly trying to dispel the barrage of misinformation that rlaberge likes to post on liberal.ca. To point out that he/she is mistaken in their assessment of the causes of Canada’s national debt and on top of that, is using “bad” mathematics to make the point. I also did want to address rlaberge’s disparagement of the late Rt. Hon. Pierre Trudeau. It is simply not necessary to be rude to get your point across.
I agree that the Liberal position on the economy was weak in the last election. I think a lot of that was simply that we (mistakenly) thought that the electorate was paying attention to what the conservatives were doing. That they would have noticed that Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty were caught off guard when the recession hit. That they were still saying everything was fine as late as September 2008 when the rest of the world (and Canada) could clearly see what was about to happen.
As far as the current situation, while I do agree that it is important that we begin to prepare a solid economic platform, I think it makes more sense for the LPC to move slowly on this. We really cannot affect any change on what the conservatives are going to do. They have proven that they have no intention of listening to, let alone adopting, any ideas from anyone in the opposition. Time will tell where the economy goes from here in the next 3 years. Hard to predict. Why lock ourselves into a policy now that may not be the best approach leading into the next election. We have the time to study, watch and prepare – we should use it.
Martin: I agree with you that the Conservatives operate like bullies and discourage any input from any one but themselves. Actually there are only maybe 3 Ministers that have influence on the PMO, so useful dialogue is in a pretty closed circle.
But I think the Liberals over the last 6 years (since Paul Martin left) have stopped providing constructive ideas about the economy. I understand your point about wasting your breath but I think the only way our critic (i.e. Scot Brison) is going to get good at the topic is by going through the discipline of making positive recommendations.
The idea of the Financial Transactions Tax may be a good idea. I would like to see Scott Brison’s office studying that and working up a proposal. If he makes enough noise with good ideas, people might start noticing and think differently about the Liberals.
Agreed – we do have to start offering solutions and ideas – whether they are listened to or not.
Focus Martin focus.
Again for about the fourth time my argument is that the numbers DO matter.
By your own admission you don’t think the numbers look very good under Harper but all I keep hearing from you are ways to spend money.
“Repeat after me…The numbers DO matter, we need to get our financial house in order before any new spending on social programs”
Let’s please hear some discussion about how we can get our books balanced and if that means cuts to programs let’s hear ‘em.
rlaberge: I agree with you, we must come up with some positive proposals to help eliminate the deficit so we can start paying down the debt. My suggestions are:
1. Financial Transactions Tax
I think there is some confusion about how much money this would generate. It should for sure be investigated and if it makes sense, we should propose it.
2. Shift our Exports toward to BRIC Countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China)
The US Economy is only going to get worse, we need other sources for our exports. I am not just referring to commodities. We have SNC Lavalin, Bombardier, Acres Engineering and others selling our engineering and project management skills. We need more of this. This countries will be spending trillions on infrastructure over the next 10 years, we should be bidding on those projects.
3. Health Care not Disease Care
Instead of training more doctors, nurses and building more hospitals we should be looking at our nutrition and lifestyles from cradle to grave. Over 75% of heart disease, over 98% of Type 2 diabetes, over 50% of cancers and over 50% of Alzheimers can be prevented through eating a healthy diet, proper exercise, not smoking and avoiding toxic chemicals in the work place and home. Yet, the government does really promote this. We should be starting with children in elementary school and continuing with all ages with a health education plan on how to eat and live properly.
rlaberge: I agree with you, we must come up with some positive proposals to help eliminate the deficit so we can start paying down the debt. My suggestions are:
1. Financial Transactions Tax
I think there is some confusion about how much money this would generate. It should for sure be investigated and if it makes sense, we should propose it.
2. Shift our Exports toward to BRIC Countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China)
The US Economy is only going to get worse, we need other sources for our exports. I am not just referring to commodities. We have SNC Lavalin, Bombardier, Acres Engineering and others selling our engineering and project management skills. We need more of this. This countries will be spending trillions on infrastructure over the next 10 years, we should be bidding on those projects.
3. Health Care not Disease Care
Instead of training more doctors, nurses and building more hospitals we should be looking at our nutrition and lifestyles from cradle to grave. Over 75% of heart disease, over 98% of Type 2 diabetes, over 50% of cancers and over 50% of Alzheimers can be prevented through eating a healthy diet, proper exercise, not smoking and avoiding toxic chemicals in the work place and home. Yet, the government does not really promote this. We should be starting with children in elementary school and continuing with all ages with a health education plan on how to eat and live properly.
Why do you constantly feel it necessary to condescend and bully on this site? Does it make you feel powerful? Do you think it hides your lack of understanding of the issues? Masks your misinformation?
I am very focused, rlaberge (or whatever your name is) and no, I will not repeat your little mantra. The reason I am ignoring your constant repetition of “numbers do matter” is that that the phrase has no substance, no meaning. I don’t know what you are trying to say.
If your entire solution to the problems we face is to cut all of Canada’s social programs, then I suggest you join the conservative party. That’s not what the Liberal party stands for.
And where exactly am I, personally, saying we should spend more money? Where have I specifically advocated more spending? This is just more of your misinformation tactics. Sorry, I don’t want to play.
I’m with you Catherine…I don’t understand why voters think that the conservatives/republicans are better fiscal managers either. Seems to me whenever either party is in power, the economy tanks.
Please see my response to rlaberge below.
TAX and SPEND, TAX and SPEND…. good luck gents.
Wanna know how Chretien/Martin knocked down the deficit? They cut transfers to the provinces and they in turn cut services, most notably health care. The numbers DO matter.
Wanna know what happened when Bob Rae took over Ontario? He found the deficit pretty high. His solution was unpaid Rae days for civil servants. Came against a pretty large backlash for it too. The numbers DO matter.
By the way, both of these moves were the correct ones.
Liberals need to behave like a government in waiting if they want to be seen as one.
Currently Harper is running up big deficits. This game can only go so long. Hence the notification to the provinces that health transfers will be capped in 2015??? whatever the date??
Again, the numbers matter.
It is easy on an opinion board to talk social programs but much harder to make it happen in government.
TAX and SPEND, TAX and SPEND. Pray to the god Pierre!!
I am glad that you mentioned the “underground economy”. Something that CRA does not effectively deal with. You mention that CRA has tools to combat this issue. Maybe they do. But they do not use them. I see an organization that does not like to leave their desk. Except when they are auditing the businesses that they have flagged as a risk. When have you ever heard of CRA actually doing some investigation into an underground business? I do not believe it happens.
I have been preparing GST/RST (now the HST) for many years for a friend. She decided to do a few on her own, and some flag at CRA was raised.
After re-creating the returns, I found that she had made several errors that had resulted in a higher refund claim, and my guess it was the ratio of sales to expenses that triggered the audit.
The people at CRA are generally a very nice bunch, but they are not fools. If they suspect something, they have many tools to ferret out the mistakes and outright criminal tax evasion.
On the other hand, they are just as likely to point out something that is to the taxpayer’s benefit.
I see a number of comments that approve of higher taxes, as log as it doesn’t apply to them.;)
If you look around the world, many countries; Europe especially have a higher consumption tax (VAT) than we do, along with a lower personal tax rate. Germany, arguably the strongest economy in the G20 is on the low side at 19% VAT.
Cutting the GST was a mistake. It is a fairly expensive tax to collect, and 5% isn’t much over the break-even point. 7% or higher is more appropriate as the cost to collect is relatively lower.
As to those who would counter with the ‘underground economy’, it isn’t as easy as you might think to evade the GST. CRA has many mechanisms in place to ferret out the offenders.
Christopher: I agree that cutting the GST was a mistake but increasing it back up again will be almost impossible. Its very hard to get elected on that type of platform particularly when we have 40% of the people in the Conservative camp. They would just come back with a bigger majority.
The amount of money we would raise from a Financial Transaction Tax is unclear. The Robin Hood site http://robinhoodtax.ca/actnow says a transaction tax of 0.05% on all financial transactions (stocks, bonds, money, derivatives) would generate “hundreds of billions” of dollars per year.
Our deficit in 2010 was about $30 B and our debt is $576 B. If we can collect even $100 B per year from a financial transaction tax, we would be out of the woods.
There are always downsides to a solution that on the surface appears so great. If there is a financial expert here who could explain the downside, lets hear it.
But on the surface, this sounds like the answer to a maiden’s prayer.
The banks would just pass on the ‘robin hood tax’ to all customers in that scenario, with rebates to the wealthy for various things such as ‘loyalty programs’ or whatever else they can dream up.
It would be a hard sell as well, as the excesses that occurred in the rest of the world were not duplicated to any great extent here, due to our more stringent banking laws.
The average middle class family spends about $10K per year (accounting for the odd car purchase) on GST/HST applicable purchases. The ‘extra’ 2% would therefore cost the average family about $200 per year amortising the major purchases. Put together with personal tax reductions for the middle and lower taxpayers, it’s not a hard sell, especially as there would be no reduction for high income earners.
Christopher: I don’t think we would care if the Banks passed off charging the tax to their top customers. As long as the government got its money, who cares how they handle it internally.
I was wondering what would happen however if people decided to do their trading on the New York Stick Exchange. This might be a way around the tax.
I also wonder about the math that says that this would generate hundreds of billions of dollars per year. The annual profits of our top 5 banks would be less than $100 B per year. I did some looking around in wikipedia and cannot get a figure for this except at the Robin Hood web site. I don’t get the feeling we have a very good handle on the amount we could collect on this.
Just to be clear…it is not the “banks” that are charged a tax. It is a tax on the transaction itself that would be paid by the two parties involved in the transaction. There would be nothing for the banks to pass on to consumers. And, if they try to, without justification, raise the costs of banking for the average person, then we fight that, with regulations if necessary.
I wholeheartedly agree with changing the game Martin. How many of us around this planet are ready to take the steps to get it done ? The ones who caused the recession in 2008 and then got bailed out by us, will more than likely do it again and at our expense because we refuse to stand as one and make our voices heard. I’m open to suggestions, let’s all get together and get the ball rolling to ensure the game changes, the sooner the better.
I agree with your statement Mike. However, where will we find the politicians with enough guts to get that done ? Unless we can reform our political system completely and rid ourselves of lobby groups we will never have a government that leads according to the people’s wishes. We will remain with the type of leadership that governs with the next vote they will get in mind at all times. We must strive to have a form of Liberalism that will allow this to happen instead of Conservatism that at the present time is bringing us back to the same type of government that we had in the fifties where Eisenhower had more influence here than in the States. If we continue on this track, the national debt maybe down a bit by the next election and our purchasing power will be even further down than what it is presently. I still don’t think that taxation will bring us back wealth.
Robert: Michael Ignatieff stood up and said the Corporate Tax Cuts should be delayed and I don’t think that’s why we lost the election.
I think the lobby groups who depend on derivatives are relatively small.
I don’t know if this is coming up at the biennial convention next month. There may be some complexities. I would hope that the Liberal Party could look at this objectively and come up with a policy that is best for Canadians rather than for the lobby groups.
Is a “ROBIN HOOD TAX” really what is needed ? It is not a bad idea. Or should we simply abolish personal income tax and instead boost the GST to 20% + 20% PST and then everyone pays no matter what……Most of us are already paying more than 40% on our income besides the other taxes out there. I think we should be looking for an acceptable compromise that would put the economy back on its feet and get Canadians back to work. The middle class is on the way to join the poor and the rich have Harper and Flaherty, we are really in a world of hurt.
Robert, our income tax is far more progressive than the HST. i.e. a person earning $50,000 per year spends almost all of his/her income on products subject to the HST but a millionaire spends only a small part of his/her salary on consumer items. So a millionaire pays a lower portion of his/her salary on HST.
So whatever gap we already have between rich and poor would simply get larger.
Now you may have a point about loopholes which allows a millionaire to avoid income tax with tax exempt investments or tax reduced compensation like stock options.
I would rather see the tax loop holes closed than abandon our progressive Income Tax system.
The Robin Hood Tax concept is not really about replacing or supplementing a country’s existing tax system. Rather, it is about creating a whole new revenue stream by taxing the group that has caused most of the financial hardship the world is currently facing. It is about taxing the extremely rich individuals and corporations who have made, and continue to make, their billions by speculating in the currency and derivatives markets. The ones who add absolutely no value to the world, who design nothing, manufacture nothing, contribute nothing. The ones who caused the recession of 2008, got bailed out by the real tax payers, and then gave themselves bonuses.
It is about taking this revenue, that they can easily afford (we’re talking about %0.05), and using it to fight poverty. Using it to help pay the people that lost their jobs so others could get rich. Using it to improve the world. It’s about changing the game. It’s about the %99 vs. the %1. It’s about justice.
We are losing our middle class because we, as all western economies, have shipped all our manufacturing jobs to low wage countries. It is not a coincidence Ontario is now a “have not” province. Seeing as we are considered a commodity based economy I believe we should tax our corporations more. They will come here regardless of the higher taxes if we own the commodity they need. BUT….. do not do the Liberal thing and put the added revenue into more social programs. NO to national daycare. NO to more for Indians (sorry Martin) We can barely afford the ones we have now. The provinces will be screaming for more transfers for health as boomer age. WE still have a sizable debt to pay for our childrens sake. Get it together people.
Canada is built on social programs. That’s what we stand for. The provision of a social safety net is what we we’ve been all about since the great depression.
The liberal proposal of a National Daycare program is not only financially a good thing for Canada it is also a matter of social justice and responsibility. It’s about addressing: women’s equality, a stronger more available workforce, child poverty, early education. Generally, about building a stronger Canada.
And, as far as social support for the Inuit, Aboriginal and First Nation peoples of Canada – don’t apologize to ME! Apologize to the children of Attawapiskat (and multiple other reservations) who live without proper schools, proper sanitation, crammed into close quarters where respiratory disease flourishes. Apologize to them and explain why they can’t have a hope for a better future in this great country of OURS (not just yours). One last thing… “We can barely afford the ones we have now” …???… Do you know how that sounds? Read it a few times. Is that really the way you want to phrase that? If so, I don’t think I have much left to say to you.
LOL, sorry Martin. My entry means we can barely afford the social programs we have now. My apologies for any misunderstanding.
There is some discussion here about TAXATION and I would like to pass on an idea that is gaining some momentum around the world, especially in Great Britain – it’s called the ROBIN HOOD TAX and is based on the idea of charging a very small fee on bank transactions that “…don’t include the public…bonds, derivatives, currencies, speculative stuff…”
Please watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYtNwmXKIvM&feature=youtu.be
Is this something we liberals should support and make part of our policy?
Please also see: http://robinhoodtax.ca/
Martin: I totally agree with this. I know there are some derivatives that are honest and useful to businesses but I am of the opinion that most of them are being purchased by hedge funds and speculators simply to make money. The Conservatives are against a Financial Transaction Tax and I don’t believe the Liberal Party has taken a stand on this. It would be a good way to distinguish us from the Conservatives.
I just read a comment about most people feeling that we pay enough in taxes. To be honest, I feel that taxes have been cut too much. For us to have a fair and equitable society for everyone those who have need to pay more to help those who have not. With the trend of the rich getting richer, the poor poorer and the middle class disapearing, big business and the rich must pay more. Big business isn’t creating the jobs they’re alleged to with the tax cuts, so increase them. The rich don’t need more money, so tax them. I want my compassionate Canada back, not the selfish one it’s becoming!
Hi Catherine: I totally agree. This is one of the major concerns of the Occupy movement and I think the Liberal Party should pick up on it. In the last election, Michael Ignatieff proposed to delay the corporate tax cuts and I think many agreed with him. Our corporations are sitting on mountains of cash right now and it seems ridiculous to give them even more tax breaks.
Also we have young people graduating with high debt and no job or minimum wage jobs. We have to provide more financial support for kids getting job related education in Engineering, Business, Science, Mathematics, Law, Medicine.
And I do think we should be increasing the tax rate on those earning more than $250,000 per year.
In the end, we as consumers that buy the products or use the services pay the corporations’ taxes, so it doesn’t really matter, and higher corporate taxes just mean higher prices to consumers, affecting the poor more than the wealthy.
Consumption taxes, on the other hand apply more heavily to the wealthy, as they tend to be the ones buying the higher priced items, and the rebates to the poor could be increased.
Restoring the GST to 7% would raise a huge amount of tax, and there is no fairer way to collect from the ultimate taxpayer – you and me.
Taxation is complicated. It is not always a good idea to try to apply “absolutes” to the effects of raising or lowering certain taxes.
Raising corporate taxes does not necessarily translate into increased consumer costs (although often it does). Corporations work on a profit basis and raising costs directly affects the bottom line – higher prices mean lower sales. So, with the exception of essential services and goods, raising the price of a product to cover taxes does not always make sense for a company.
While I agree with your principal that raising consumption taxes hits those with more money the hardest, again absolutes are dangerous. Those with large stock piles of money (liquid assets) are likely to stop spending that money if consumption taxes go up. “I don’t NEED that new luxury car, or Gucci purse, right now”. They become more likely to leave the money in investments which does not help a struggling economy.
At the other end of the income spectrum, those with few resources must keep spending on their day-to-day existence…”the kids NEED new clothes…the washer and dryer MUST be replaced”. My family income has dropped dramatically since 2008 but I cannot stop purchasing the things I need to survive…but…I also cannot afford to pay more for those goods and services due to an increase in consumption taxes.
So, what’s the answer? Taxes on speculative bank transactions (see: http://robinhoodtax.ca), higher income taxes on the rich (and to me, that’s anyone making more than $100K a year), higher taxes on investment income, drop the “tax free savings account” – only those with money to put into savings get the benefit. Simply put…take more money from those that have it and less from those that don’t.
Christopher its a one way street. We introduced the Harmonized Sales tax in Ontario which transferred $2 Billion in taxes from our corporations to consumers. The story we got was that prices would drop because of the lower taxes. Prices did not drop, the money just went to their bottom lines and into the executive compensation packages. But if taxes go up, for sure they will increase prices. We can only hope that there is still some competition in our supposedly free market so some part of the tax increase goes into reduced margins rather than increased prices.
I agree Catherine. The problem with western economies is the greed of individuals and corporations and the willingness of our governments to support that greed through unfair taxation policies. No country’s economy can survive for long without a strong middle class and yet nothing is being done to grow the middle – quite the opposite.
This concept of people taking as much as they can and ‘to hell with everyone else’ will ultimately be our downfall unless regulation and taxation put an end to “ME FIRST” thinking. The strength (and pride) of countries should be about US…WE…not “me”.
Elizabeth Warren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren) had this to say on the subject:
——
“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there – good for you!
But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.
Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea – God bless. Keep a big hunk of it.
But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.” ~ Elizabeth Warren
——
She is a great mind and worth listening to.
After reading the comments here I think it would be best if I just opened some kind of dialog with Mr Mike Smith in particular. Because any statements from me would make very little sense according to what Mike uses to established what seems to be sound argument for what he believes, but is not.
For starters Mike I’d just like to say I don’t mean any disrespect. You arguments are in fact very familiar to me. You have no idea how similar you arguments are to those of my father with whom I have these exact debates with on a regular bases. So I do know where you are coming from and respect that. However also like my father you seem to constantly use an unreasonable value of a dollar to make most of your arguments. Not that this makes your convictions wrong, but it certainly puts you way out of prospective, regarding what you are base them on. If you were to understand that what you are seeing as a dollar is actually only worth 10 or 15 cents, I’m sure you would quickly realize what I’m saying.
So this comment doesn’t get long and boring. How about I just stick to the substance of one of your comments. What is happening in Attawapiskat. Because I’m sure you are having issues with my previously mentioned figure of what you perceive as a dollar being worth only 10 to 15 cents. Not that I could not prove the accuracy, lets double that figure for arguments sake and apply that reality to Attawapiskat issue.
Lets just say Attawapiskat is in a mid Northern area of Saskatchewan and its population is about 1800 people. Not only does the town Counsel have the expense of the water, sewer, roads, policing, firefighting, and garbage pick-up, but they also have to bear the total expense of building a hospital, a school and any other structure needed for anyone living in the town, including all their private houses. As well a few additional expenses also include all the peoples incomes and their medical expenses as well. People who live on reserves get no government paid for health care. It entirely paid for out of the bands expenditures.
In my opinion 15 million dollars is by no means a lot of money to operate a community of 1800 people when you take into account all the things previously mentioned and there’s probably many other things I didn’t mention. So Mike I think if you were being reasonable you to would agree that 15 million a year for all this in not really a lot.
Now take into account that these people really do live in tim buck two where everything cost at least twice as much as we pay. And just so everyone knows they didn’t exactly choose to live there. Nor do they actually receive all the money that it’s said they did. Indian Affairs has been handling most of it for years and be sure they don’t do that work free of charge. How much they charge is in fact a complete other story.
Anyways Mike I hope I will be able to open an on going dialog with you. Because this is merely a taste of the many things we have to talk about. I look forward to getting much more into depth about things with you in the future.
Robert: I think somewhere along the line we have to decide which Reserves can be maintained at a reasonable cost while providing a high quality of life for our FNs and which cannot. We have Reserves at Orillia and Akwesasne where the FNs have a high quality of life with the funds provided. There are other Reserves (Attiwapiskat may be one of them) where a good quality of life cannot be reasonably maintained.
Now if you said for sure that if we doubled the funds for Attiwapiskat that they definitely would have a high quality of life over the longer term, I would not necessarily say no. I do not know what the cutoff point would be.
I also am not sure if the people of Attipawapiskat really want to stay there. Remember there is 90% unemployment. The weather in the winter is not great. I think many are still there because we have not offered then a reasonable means of getting set up in a normal city with access to health care and a job.
I know I have referred to money. I don’t know how much taxes you pay each year, but most of feel we pay enough taxes and we should be careful with what the government spend in all aspects. But my biggest concern is the long term quality of life for the FNs. If we can solve their long term problems with more money then I am open to that thought but I think if we get the FNs involved in the process they will be more interested in their long term welfare then another money shot in the arm.
I am not well versed in political strategy. Anything I comment on will be in plain down to earth fashion. You could say that I have not had much interest in politics for much of the 52 years I have been on this earth. I did join the Liberal Party a couple of years ago. This was due to increased awareness of the issues affecting this country. Unfortunately, the Liberals were temporarily in the ditch. I am a medium size business owner, previously a blue collar / white collar, tradesperson / manager.
I run an honest business, submit my taxes as should be done.
The bulk of voters are not interested in the environment, foreign policy et. They are interested in the economy, health care, employment, retirement. All of these issues are connected to one major problem. The economy. We work, we make money, we purchase goods, we pay taxes. Run this in reverse. We pay taxes, we purchase goods, we make money, we work. See, taxes are good. When my wife says, I have to pay $35,000 in HST this month, I say, gee thats 13% of our sales! Thats great! So, what am I getting at? I know, and alot of other people know about the underground economy. Come on, you know about this one, don’t you? Where is the dialogue on that one? What about that guy that is painting cars in his garage? Last one I heard about, he made $8000 cash in one week. What? Thats one guy, yah, one guy. Whats the 13% of that one? Do some calculating and multiply that for the country. What about that, oh, you can go into business, and NOT collect HST if you do not have sales over 30K. OK, what a way to promote the underground economy! Yes, CRA will assist you in this endeavor. What a deal. Get rid of that program. Oh, I am not a body shop either. But, those legal body shops out there would appreciate the business, and lower their prices due to the fact that they are busy and can hire more employees that WORK,make MONEY, pay TAXES into the system and PURCHASE goods. This is just one example, one avenue of the underground economy. Gee, this could even equate to lower taxes for the people who actually pay taxes! CRA could afford to put people to work. I wish I had the capacity to take this on myself, it would get done. So, we have to count on the politicians to bring this countries economy around. And, guess what, if this does not change, the economy will suffer to a greater extent year after year.
USA , they collect taxes, even at yard sales!
Now that I have spouted, all of you laughing out there, have a Merry Christmas.
Fundamental freedoms (section 2), namely freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and of other media of communication, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association.what happened everyone on here has lost what is going on you guys are way off track lets talk about what was canada all our so called rights that were help put in to place were did they go? we as canadians should have our rights restored and not worry about what is going on in the world it starts with our home and rights we lost!
Doc: I have not seen a real attack on our freedoms. Its true that Stephen Harper hates the press and makes it more difficult stories from himself and his ministers but I think they still do a good job of reporting what is going on. There is also the issue of transparency as we saw in the Afghan Prisoner Transfer and G-20 inquiry.
Are these the freedoms you are talking about?
You have listed “freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and of other media of communication, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association”. This is a pretty long list. Exactly which freedoms do you feel are being compromised?
Hello Mike,
I wouldn’t consider us having lost many freedoms but some are eroding.. with democracy withering, freedom of living in a democratic state is waning, this can be contrued many ways.
From a type of government, leadership style, information collection and dissemination, to outright law breaking, a democracy can be destroyed in many ways. Look at Election Canada’s review of the new conservative party’s actions, see the Speaker’s wrist slap the conservative government for their actions on the Cotler affair.
Once our democracy shuts down, we will lose other freedoms. Democracy is the foundation of our rights and freedoms.