You ask as though you’re surprised. Granting a cabinet position to a Liberal defector was a surprise (to me). This was not.

In that regard, neither is it surprising that the provinces intend to put up a fight. Anybody who is on the dole, no matter who they are or for what reason, will always fight to keep benefits they already have.

Comparing federally-funded childcare to being “on the dole” is as bizarre a comparison as I’ve ever heard.

Doubly funny when it’s the Tories who want to replace it with an unconditional* handout to parents. Jeez. Sounds a lot like social assistance if you ask me.

* Sure, they can spend it on what they please, but it’s tilted towards two-parent single-income families, and as taxable income induces a lot of clawbacks at 30-40K faily income. But who cares about such design flaws, right?

Thanks for posting this. I’ve been all over this all day. I guess you can say I have been waiting patiently for this news to break. I’m not an economist or a great social scientist but $1000.00 into an individual’s pocket will not help children in general access non-existing day care spots. It won’t help develop training curriculum in early childhood development, it won’t upgrade run-down facilities, and it won’t do a heck of a lot for children and families who require quality care for their children. I don’t have a problem with stay-at-home mom’s receiving a tax-break of some sort but not on the backs of moms, dads, and families that need access to day care. Many of my friends and colleagues have been concerned about Harpers concept of early childhood development but I have faith in the people of Canada. Never trust the politicians. I think this is going to prove a very important lesson for the Conservative’s. Yes they were elected in, but not with a majority. And a lot of people who did vote for them did not vote out the childcare strategy that the mom’s and dad’s of this country helped form.

This is only going to work where there is a stay at home parent, the double minimum wage income working poor, and single parent families are still screwed - and the 1% GST cut (when/if it happens) is going to be no help at all, and the sports tax break was never intended to help low income families.

Of equal, and possibly greater, concern is the lack of confidence in the federal level to follow through on deals that are already inked during an election year that this instills at other levels. The government signed a deal and now, with a change in leadership, the government is changing its mind - what message of confidence does that send?

Can you imagine the business world operating that way? Inter-business contracts and agreements arbitrarily scrapped with the changing of the chairman of the board?

Kevin,

The Tory baby bonus isn’t means-tested. However, it does apply against all the other means-tested programs out there (health premium reductions, GST credit, provincial benefits and child care subsidies, and so forth.) Clawback city, especially for the working poor and working class.

The Caledon Institute (left-leaning but reasonable social policy think tank) crunched the numbers for how it would affect parents in Ontario. They figured that families earning in the $20K-45K range would see the least benefit, sometimes less than 1/2 of the face value of $1200. It’s practically the reverse of means-testing — but single-income families with incomes over $110K will net nearly the entire face value of the baby bonus. Handy, that. They also note that for those on social assistance, the money could be clawed back by the province, giving the family no benefit.

What hacks me off is that I’m looking at a tax increase in so that the government can send cheques out to those who have, for the most part, already planned to have one parent look after the kids and budgeted accordingly. Can anyone say “vote buying?”

It’s Tory social engineering; it favours a family model that is popular in conservative circles while doing little to help those who most need the help or to actually supply more child-care spaces. Whoever designed this plan is either demented or mendacious.

I’d be happy if the Tories either scrapped this idea or at least changed it into something like an increased child tax benefit. Or look at something like B.C.’s scheme, which is means-tested, and pays a good chunk of the cost of all sorts of arrangements, from in-home care to groups daycare and all points in between. I have more repect for governments that break ill-conceived promises (if they will at least admit that the promise was dumb) over those that carry them out.

Ian-

Thanks for the link and the details.

Stageleft-

I’m not that concerned about changing policy. I think we should be examining the policy and criticizing or praising it on its merits but not criticizing the government for changing. New government — new policies. That’s their job.

As you know, business and government are two different things. Are you really arguing that government should operate like a business :)

A single income earner only claims in the lower brackets once and has a lower deduction for a spouse than the basic exemption applied to a second income earner. I see now how the proposed bonus is tilted toward single income families, but I also see how the overall playing field is tilted away. A facile comparison of one $80K earner compared to two $40K earners (no special deductions other than basic, spouse, CPP, EI) indicates that the former will pay about $7K more in taxes than the latter combined. The gap widens as the single and combined incomes increase in lockstep. How would you like to redress that?

I’d be curious to see if any polling of businesses has been done to see how many actually plan to build daycare centers in response to Harper’s child care program. Duffy had some childcare workers on yesterday who said pulling the funds that were previously promised will definitely cause the loss of thousands of daycare spots in Ontario alone. So I would hope that someone’s got some solid numbers to show that those places will be replaced, one would hope anyway.

As far as Harper planning to “kill the federal gov’t”, it seems an accompanying music video has already been released to commemorate it. Gotta love Google. (note: satiracal, not to be taken even remotely seriously)

What is it that distinguishes this from another federal policy in which funds are committed.

If there is a signed contract/agreement between the levels of government it has moved beyond policy and into the realm of contract - has it not?

Surely even the most ardent of CPoC supporters can make that distinction.

The appropriate action here is to state that policy has changed and that when the current contract/agreement expires it will not be renewed.

Governments have a right to kill agreements, just as they have a right to repeal or amend legislation or abrogate treaties.

If the government scraps a signed contract/agreement and can defend its actions in a court of law if called upon to do so they can kill agreements, they cannot do it on a policy whim.

Legislation can be repealed or amended with due process and I think you may want to check with a constitutional lawyer on your last one, as well as looking up what powers the government has and under what processes they can exercise them.

…. it’s government IrC, not an absolute monarchy - think about what you just said.

Stick around and keep us grounded, Wideye. It’s great to have you here.

They’re only called “marriage vows” by the church IrC, and the neither the parties involved, nor the church, can just scrap them - courts do, because it’s a legal contract, they also deal with what is best for the kids… funny thing that isn’t it?

You call call it anything you want IrC, and dress it up any way you please, but it is a contract, pure and simple. The promise to love, honour, cherish, etc., can be broken in any number of ways but simply scrapping the whole thing on the say so of one of the parties is not an option without a court getting involved.

You’ve done an interesting job of trying to wander this thing down different paths IrC but they all lead back to the concept of a contract/agreement being binding on the parties who signed it. If signed federal agreements can change on the whim of the government of the day what confidence can there be in any agreement signed by the government?

ummmmmmmmmmm….It sounds like you believe that because two people, who marry and have children, can get a divorce and end their contractual relationship, that the Conservative Party can break Canada’s contracts with the people of Canada.

Are you a scorned lover?

You ask your own questions then answer them - when are you going to address the issue in this thread. Cancelling the National Child Care Agreements

I am talking about bettering conditions for children. All children regardless of race, income, or residence. You are talking about adults and their responsibilities.

I already accept that a heck of a lot of adults - regardless of race, income, or residence can behave in irresponsible ways - I just don’t care to wait or trust that they will change.

I care about the children.

Good luck to you IrC. Thank goodness governments can cancel agreements. You’ll find out when the Tories fall after a mere year. Min(ority)i-Me Harper and his treasonous ilk will get to limp home to apple-pie moms who don’t spend their “childcare” windfall of $1200 on beer and popcorn, but on charity dinners with FORKs and perhaps a new car to drive their kids to hockey practice.