Categories: Capital Read, Inside the Queensway

Happy birthday, Universal Child Care Benefit!

by kadyomalley on Friday, July 17, 2009 3:31pm - 97 Comments

Does this event not strike anyone else as being a bit, well, weird?

The Honourable Steven Fletcher, Minister of State (Democratic Reform), on behalf of the Honourable Diane Finley, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, will celebrate the third anniversary of the Universal Child Care Benefit, on July 20 in Winnipeg.

Minister of State Fletcher will be available to answer questions from the media following the celebration.

Please note that all details are subject to change. All times are local.

DATE: Monday, July 20, 2009

TIME: 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: YMCA West Portage
Preschool Centre
St. James Child Care
3550 Portage Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba

First off, since when do we celebrate legislative anniversaries before the law in question has even hit the magic five year mark? Is this a new trend? Was ITQ left off the invite list for the GST cut birthday party? And why Winnipeg? Why Steven Fletcher? I mean, it’s hard to see how this falls under ‘democratic reform’. It just seems so … random. I guess it’s possible that this is just one of a series of cross-country celebrations, but so far, it’s the only advisory that has shown up on the gallery listserv. I’ll keep y’all posted if it turns out to be a sea-to-sea-to-sea sort of thing.

Tags: excuses to burn off some of the balloon and cupcake budget, increasingly abstract photo-ops, Steven Fletcher, universal child care benefit

More by kadyomalley

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"Does this event not strike anyone else as being a bit, well, weird?"

I think everything pols do is a bit weird, at the very least. But I agree that this event does stretch the boundaries of weirdness. I assume this is all Cons could come up with to get Fletcher some publicity and into the news.

http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

I should note that I meant a harmless kind of weird, the weird that just makes you go — huh. Couldn't wrangle one of those giant cheques out of John Baird's clutches? But weird, nonetheless.

http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

I get to push not-very-newsy events for a living. And I'll be damned if there's anything here i could work with.
Maybe the Minister was complaining of not enough attention?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Another three years and it'll be old enough not to qualify for the Universal Child Care Benefit…no wait…
http://twitter.com/larrylarry @larrylarry

I wonder if this celebration qualifies under the Marquee Tourism Events Program?
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

10:00 am?! I thought the Conservatives had deep pockets, so why did they pick the cheapest hour of the day for a "celebration" – no need for anything more than a jug of coffee and few timbits.

And what's going to transpire to make the event celubrious in nature?

http://intensedebate.com/people/criselis criselis

The preschoolers won't have to take their naps. They won't need them since they'll have coffee and timbits to get them through the day.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Kids are gonna be there?!!!? Speaking as a parent of three, that doesn't sound like much of celebration. Now, if Fletcher's offering to watch my kids for a few hours, I'll book the plane tickets to Winnepeg immediately. (Watch the small one closely Steven, he likes to bite caregivers as a form of self expression.)

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

At the risk of seeming terribly insensitive: if your youngest child were to bite our esteemed Minister of State for Democratic Reform, I'm not sure that he would notice it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

That's brutal…although I did laugh, but only for a second, I promise.

John.K

I vote for "celubrious" as the best neologism of the week.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Mary_Lynn Mary_Lynn

w00t! Three years of what my husband and I still affectionately refer to as "beer and popcorn money".
http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Could he be referring to the Martin childcare initiative … which some of the provinces seem
to be sniffing around the remains thereof ?

I guess not, eh.
http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

This is great. Until today I thought the NDP's puppet show a few years ago was the silliest stunt to generate media attention by a politician I'd ever heard of. Thanks Stephen.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

that puppet show was pretty awesomely silly.[youtube lycJmmiEhLA&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lycJmmiEhLA&fe... youtube]
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

that puppet show was pretty awesomely silly.[youtube lycJmmiEhLA&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lycJmmiEhLA&fe... youtube]
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

that puppet show was pretty awesomely silly.[youtube lycJmmiEhLA&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lycJmmiEhLA&fe... youtube]

Paul Wells

I think one’s likelihood of finding this odd might decline if one were a parent of two or more children, earning the national median income or less.

I don’t think even that cohort will be flocking to Winnipeg and popping champagne corks. But a reminder of this policy, and its provenance, probably won’t fill them with scorn.

Why the third anniversary? Because there will be an election before the fourth.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Well, they had better have that election before next year. My youngest will turn six, we won't be getting the benefit in this house anymore, and I'll have no reason to vote for them. :)

(Joking aside, I think it's probably been one of their better received programs, and they're smart to trumpet it).
http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

Fair point, Paul, but won't it also remind people that the Conservatives haven't even come close to providing the number of daycare spaces they promised to create.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Yup. The number of people who received a cheque this month, however, outnumbers the number who remember they were hoping to get a daycare space that never existed before or after 2006.

This daycare component does indeed constitute a broken Conservative election promise. Failure to deliver a future benefit isn't usually penalized as heavily by voters as removal of an existing benefit.

http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

That makes sense. I guess you can't underestimate the seductive power of a government stipend.
http://www.macleansfordummies.blogspot.com Karen

As a matter of fact, many daycare spaces that did exist before 2006 dissappeared. McGuinty's provincial governement didn't get the money they expected, and so they stopped funding spaces in Ontario. Licensed spaces run by the City of Toronto and Home daycare spaces went up in price to unaffordable. In fact, while available, parents didn't use them due to cost. Is you magazine afraid of this type of comment? Let me know. It's only truth.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Only thing I'm afraid of is your spelling of "disappeared," which is making my eyes hurt. The rest is fine. Sorry to screw up your (by all the evidence terrifyingly hypertrophied) victim complex.

http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

But if that were the case — which it very well may be — then do it up *proper-like*, with the minister — heck, a few ministers, even — and events across the country? Why just Steven Fletcher in Winnipeg? As I said — random. And that's not a comment on the policy, or the idea of an event, just this particular execution thereof.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

I take your point, but it could come down to something as simple as, Fletcher had a free weekend. Anyway, it doesn't need national press attention (and I can't make this event big enough in my imagination to draw any national press attention in any event); it just needs a Tory staffer with a camera to throw some stuff up on party websites. Not even really that much; starting on Monday, Harper will be able to say, "You know, friends, last week we celebrated the third anniversary of the…" in every speech.

Sigh

Yes, but he doesn't need an actual event in order to be able to say that. I could say that I celebrated my birthday last week, but that doesn't necessarily mean I partied.

BTW, it wasn't really my birthday, so no need to send felicitations.
tobyornottoby

He's in charge of democratic reform for a government that has shown very little respect for process. Fletcher has every weekend free.

scf

Don't be the wallflower at the party, standing by the wall complaining that the party is no fun, to anybody willing to listen, while everyone else figures out a way to have a good time.

Either you want to cover it or you don't, but complaining that the event even exists is not endearing. Surely it's not the millenium celebration, but a simple shindig to remind people of a new policy is just that, a simple shindig, it doesn't need to be a grand nation-wide bash, and it doesn't need to be ridiculed either.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Come on. It's a celebration of the third anniversary of an entitlement program for parents. On the one hand, I don't think Kady was "ridiculing" it, just pointing out how, frankly, odd it seems. On the other hand, imho, it cries out for ridicule.

http://intensedebate.com/people/BCerInToronto BCerInToronto

Because there will be an election before the fourth.

One can hope. I like your optimism.

knick

Guess it's the Harperite version of daycamp to keep his bunch of youngsters busy for the summer.
Torontonian

Maybe the event takes away from Gary Goodyear's misfortunes
and Harper's on problems during the last fortnight.
http://www.windyroom.blogspot.com Karen

http://www.childcarecanada.org/pubs/op9/op9.pdf

A study of Childcare policy in Alberta. Read it to understand how the dynamic of the political dialogue around daycare works. The timing of this announcement should make sense.

I'm officially banned from this site now. I posted this comment and the administrator deleted it. Just goes to show — Macleans — all for for free speech eh? Bunch of cowards.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

I for one am quaking in my boots. Karen, I'm the guy who does most of the banning and I haven't called for you to be banned. This IntenseDebate software we have does, however, come with charming eccentricities, so I can't vouch for what might have happened at some technical level.

I've had comments swallowed too; unlike you, I haven't chalked it up to a vast conspiracy against me. Also unlike you, I didn't read the terms-of-use rules with a weird obsessive thoroughness on the first day that Maclean's had comments, more than a year ago, and come on here looking for ways those rules might Bring Me Down. Annnnd, also also also unlike you, I don't run a blog dedicated to airing my weird paranoid grudges against Maclean's.

But none of that disqualifies you from posting here to your heart's content, give or take a couple of IntenseDebate hiccups. Hey, could you tell us how evolution works again? That was my favourite.

Sigh

Interestingly, it isn't, as I, too, once thought, a glitch in the software. It's something called Community Moderation. Check out the comment from Macleans to SeanStock in Kady's blog on Tuesday
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/14/for-your-and-h…

It appear to be nothing more than a popularity contest, and it appears that ,sometimes, you're not popular either.

http://www.macleansfordummies.blogspot.com Karen

I know the Facebook policy is to disable your Facebook account when abuse is reported. I participated there in an Abortion debate sponsored by the CBC. Of course, the usual polarized left and right came out, and I have a moderate position. Well I got 'reported' by the pro-choice faction and my Facebook account was yanked. They don't restore it. Further, they yank every post you made to the discussion board. In this case, I faulted the CBC and told them they should host their online debates in their own domain and I think this point was taken. Here at macleans, I would offer the advice: If a post is reported for abuse, the IP address and the IntenseDatabase profile of the person who reported should be published. Also there should be a 'confirm report abuse' script. I support community moderation, but I think it can only work with enforced site login and transparency.

Sigh

Did you read the comment to which I referred?

http://intensedebate.com/people/SocialLiberal SocialLiberal

WOO YES!!

Do tell us Karen, how does evolution work? :D:D

Eva

What a joke!! You get 100$ per kid per month, which covers what, a day or two of daycare in most cities?
HORRIBLE!!

jarrid

Beers and popcorn weekly, basically.
scf

$1200 is a lot of money to me. Quit your whining.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Yes, but it's taxable, so I'm not sure many people get $1200, and I know parents who basically get nothing after taxes.

Here's an interesting start for a debate: The Universal Child Care Benefit is not universal, can not provide child care, and is not really a benefit. Discuss.

john g

That's all well to say, but last I checked the highest marginal tax rate in Canada is about 50%. You may be getting only $600 instead of $1200 per year but anyone who says they get nothing after the taxes is flat out lying.
jarrid

You know LKO, the Liberals never dug themselves out of the hole that Scott Reid put them in on this issue. It's an appropriate targetted benefit that assists children, even though Liberal commenter Ontario Town says that parents don't know what's good for their own kids. The Liberals were in power for 13 years and didn't think of something like this which is obviously sensible.

You're better off changing the subject than serving up your lame-o nonsense. Try to see that a party other than the Liberals can have good ideas. Your partisanship blinds you in this instance.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

"What a joke!! You get 100$ per kid per month, which covers what, a day or two of daycare in most cities?
HORRIBLE!!"

What's horrible is the sense of entitlement too many folks have with regard to their children. I make a big exception for working poor and single parents, but in many cases daycares are essentially subsidizing big houses, two cars, and large screen TVs for people who cannot fathom that having children might require a wee bit o financial sacrifice.

You want to have kids? Figure out who will take care of them, without expecting society to figure it out. $100 may not be much for daycare, but for a family like mine, where we've always had one of us at home (sometimes working part time to make ends meet), it's a big help. And it's a lot more fair than society subsidizing people who place two jobs and financial gain over taking care of their own children (again, I make a complete exception for the genuine working poor and single parents, who do need daycare).
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

"What a joke!! You get 100$ per kid per month, which covers what, a day or two of daycare in most cities?
HORRIBLE!!"

What's horrible is the sense of entitlement too many folks have with regard to their children. I make a big exception for working poor and single parents, but in many cases daycares are essentially subsidizing big houses, two cars, and large screen TVs for people who cannot fathom that having children might require a wee bit of financial sacrifice.

You want to have kids? Figure out who will take care of them, without expecting society to foot the bill. $100 may not be much for daycare, but for a family like mine, where we've always had one of us at home (sometimes working part time to make ends meet), it's a big help. And it's a lot more fair than society subsidizing people who place two jobs and financial gain over taking care of their own children (again, I make a complete exception for the genuine working poor and single parents, who do need daycare).

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

I am glad you had a go at Eva because I was about to. Unbelievable, hard working strangers are sending her at least $100 per month for having a child and she's bitching about it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

I don't even like the program that much. Like many Harper initiatives, it simply bleeds the treasury by millions of increments, without providing any measurable benefit (I'd rather see focussed programs for those who need it).

But I like subsidized daycare as a middle-class entitlement even less. I know way too many people who somehow forget that having children involves sacrifice (that is wholly worth it, I hasten to add!).

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

I don't know abut the no measurable benefit part of your comment but I do agree with focused programs for those who need it. I know two couples with children, both households make more than one hundred grand in salary, that receive these cheques and my blood pressure increases a little bit every time they mention the beer and popcorn money.

Did Canada ever have means testing? We should have it now for sure because I would be in favour of sending the cheques my friends receive to couples/single parents who actually need the money.

Subsidized daycare would not be very effective because, as you say, it will turn into a middle-class entitlement and the people who the program is meant to be helping will get elbowed aside.
http://Sophiamariegeffros.wordpress.com Sophia Geffros

True, but people who really need daycare often can’t afford it. Single-parent households, especially with more than one child, honestly need daycare, as do families where both parents must work to put food on the table. The principl behind subsidized day care and a universal childcare benefit is the same as that of universal health care: you have t.o provide the same benefit to everyone, because otherwise it becomes akin to a charity.
http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"The principl behind subsidized day care and a universal childcare benefit is the same as that of universal health care: you have t.o provide the same benefit to everyone, because otherwise it becomes akin to a charity."

I am not too concerned with people's feelings, sophia, and all handouts from the State are charity. I am not a fan of the argument that my friends', with the hundred grand plus salaries, should receive beer and popcorn money so that less-well off people don't feel like they are receiving charity. There is only so much money to go around, so we either have these half-assed universal programs that no one is really happy with or we start targeting people who actually need the money.
scf

I'm not in found of the "those in need" argument. Often those in need are simply those who made bad decisions, and were too lazy to get an education or too lazy to get a job. I see no justice in targeting the lazy with money from the hard-working and productive. Your argument comes straight out of the marxist playbook.
http://Sophiamariegeffros.wordpress.com Sophia Geffros

Wow, sf, Robert Stanfield and John Diefenbaker being known marxists, of course. First of all, not all people ‘in need’ are that way because of their own fault. The person injured in a traffic accident, the teenage prostitute who ran away from a home where she was being raped- I know people like this and I can tell you that they are not lazy, and they are not scammers. Secondly, yes, there are people who make bad choices. But why should their children suffer? The innocent should be protected at all costs, and that we aknowlegde this is part of what makes our country great.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Sophia, I absolutely agree that parents in need should get help with daycare.

But I disagree that daycare and health care are analagous. Having children is a choice. Getting into a car accident or contracting a disease is not. EDIT: Also, the costs of having children (time, money, all that stuff) are largely predictable and manageable, whereas a serious illness can bankrupt even relatively afffluent people – which is why even private systems require insurance plans to share the risk.

As for the charity angle, what can I say? It seems wasteful to provide the same benefit to everyone, just to cushion the pride of those who really need it. Also, we only provide health care to sick and injured people, with the potential assistance being there for all.
http://Sophiamariegeffros.wordpress.com Sophia Geffros

All good points, but even the best laid plans go awry. One may have a child, or three, in a safe financial situation and then go on to be forced to leave work due to illness, or split up a marriage or relationship because it becomes dangerous, or be laid off. In these situations, it is important that people have access to childcare so they are able to find a job or work in order to keep the family together. Ultimately, it’s important that the access is there so that people can do their best to support their own and not rely on welfare.
And I know that this won’t be a popular view, but allowing people to retain their pride is important. It’s important that people don’t feel that they’re being singled out, it’s bad for morale and for a sense of independance.
That said, I understand the argument that people making in excess of 100 grand recieving funds is stupid. However, the vast majority of that money is taxed back, is it not?
scf

I don't think it is stupid for those earning 100 grand are not entitled to funds. Why on earth should those pay for a program receive absolutely none of the benefits? If the program is welfare, call it welfare. If the program is child care, then all children and parents should be eligible. It's the people earning 100 grand who are working all the time, they deserve help with child care just as much as anyone else.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

I think we may be arguing past each other. I wholeheartedly support the idea that parents in need – due to economic circumstances or single parent households – ought to be helped as needed for child care.

Eva

Figure out who will take care of them….. oh here we go, another guy telling woman they should stay at home and raise the kids because what, being a mom is the best job in the world?!

You know who deserves way more respect than those mom who stay at home all the time: the ones who are educated, work hard at their jobs (as lawyers, doctors, dentists, ect), and who still have kids, who still do all the cleaning, and driving around and the going to soccer games on TOP of being at home and raising kids. So it's not society doing it, buddy, it's the women, they just care about working too.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Douglass Douglass

Hey now. Don't go disrespecting us stay at home mom's just because you are being attacked. It's not as if we aren't working. I have two kids with number three days from making her appearance, and I am a heck of a lot busier than I have ever been while working outside of the home. We all deserve credit for raising our children, regardless of whether we are able (note I say able not choose, as for some its not really a choice) to stay at home.

As to the topic at hand. While I appreciate the beer & popcorn money, I would also appreciate more subsidized childcare. For myself it is un affordable for me to currently work outside of the home. What I would be bringing in vs paying out due to childcare makes it a useless excersize. Does the beer & popcorn money make me able to afford childcare, heck no. It does help pay the bills though.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

First off, Eva, I'm a stay-at-home Dad raising three kids. So you can jam it with regard to the assumed gender bias on my part.

Tell me where in my writing I said stay at home mothers or fathers deserved more respect than those otherwise employed? I didn't, so your diatribe is misplaced.

Not that you've shown much talent at reading comprehension, but let me say it again: my simple point is that if people want to make babies, then perhaps they should think about how they are going to take care of them, and not demand society at large to foot the bill. And those women you champion (who should have thought twice about having babies with men who apparently do dick all to help) are often looking for daycare to help preserve a lifestyle that includes multiple cars, a career, a big house, and a yearly vacation at nice cottage. As are the men, I'd add. If a couple cannot figure out how to pay the bill for daycare, or how to arrange between themselves how to have one of them at home, then it's their problem.

All of this, as I mentioned, is not meant to include the genuine working poor and single parents.

sbt

Well said

Mea Culpa

I'm assuming because of the sarcasm that this is not common practice in government?

and now to the sarcasm… when will the party be thrown for the establishment of the PBO.. aggghh sorry… the (o)PBO.

Ummm… i'm also guessing that we're the financial backers for this party as well?

OoPs

Yes, but the government isn't celebrating.

Will

It makes sense of Fletcher to be there, considering the event will take place in his riding of Charleswood–St. James–Assiniboia. As for Winnipeg, maybe to remind voters of a populist Tory measure in a city which according to a recent poll might be shifting more Liberal?

OoPs

More likely because they happened to have an MP there who wasn't busy that day.

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Obviously one of their "marketing" tactics – biggest, bestest and my dog's bigger than your dog.

It's hardly universal child care.

Hmm….beer and popcorn – I have a girlfriend who is a family law lawyer who specializes in abuse cases – especially children. The stories are extremely sad – no Tories, not every parent is a good parent and knows how to look after children.

jarrid

Spoken like a true Left/Lib commenter. The state knows better how to make decisions involving children than parents do.

It's thinking like this that tells me that the Liberal Party has drifted too far left and no longer represents the center of the political spectrum.

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Yawn – you tell that to kids that are brutally beaten – or dad is high on drugs and/or in the local honky tonk slugging down a beer when the kid needs new shoes. It's about the facts – not stupid partisanship.____

jarrid

Ontario Town – keep repeating that Scott Reid line, it's outrageous, it shows contempt for ordinary Canadians and tells me why the Liberals will be on the outside looking in for a long time. Are Liberals trying to outflank the NDP on the left? I thought you guys ditched that approach when you made Stephane Dion walk the plank last December.

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Good grief – I'm not going into a back and forth with you and your neverending partisan babble. Outrageous? You've got to be kidding.

Like I said – my friend is a family law lawyer – she has stories that would curl your hair – real life guy.

End….no more back and forth – excuse to slag Liberals, when it was MY comment not theirs.
jarrid

"…when it was MY comment not theirs."

Except that you use the same talking points that Liberal talking head Scott Reid did during the 2006 campaign.

And coming from one of the most reliably partisan Liberal commenters on this blog, your cries of partisanship ring rather hollow. But, agreed, I think we've exhausted this topic.

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"It's hardly universal child care.

Hmm….beer and popcorn – I have a girlfriend who is a family law lawyer who specializes in abuse cases"

What do universal child care and abusive parents have to do with one another? Do parents stop beating their kids if there is daycare available. Never heard of that correlation/causation before.

If parents are beating their kids, the children should be removed from the home. If dad's an alcoholic, but does not beat his kids, then children are unfortunate in parents lottery but should not be removed.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"It's hardly universal child care.

Hmm….beer and popcorn – I have a girlfriend who is a family law lawyer who specializes in abuse cases"

What do universal child care and abusive parents have to do with one another? Do parents stop beating their kids if there is daycare available? Never heard of that correlation/causation before.

If parents are beating their kids, the children should be removed from the home. If dad's an alcoholic, but does not beat his kids, then children are unfortunate in parents lottery but should not be removed.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"It's hardly universal child care.

Hmm….beer and popcorn – I have a girlfriend who is a family law lawyer who specializes in abuse cases"

What do universal child care and abusive parents have to do with one another? Do parents stop beating their kids if there is daycare available? Never heard of that correlation/causation before.

If parents are beating their kids, the children should be removed from the home. If dad's an alcoholic, but does not beat his kids, then children are unfortunate in parents lottery but should not be removed.

Very few cons/tories think all parents/people are perfect. I think you will find that it's mainly libs who think people can be molded into perfection while cons believe people are imperfect, to say the least.

Lord Kitchener's Own

I'm trying to think of a leather (traditional third anniversary gift) gift that is both exciting and child appropriate.

Nope, can't do it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

Teletubby chaps.

Sigh

Teletubbies meet the Village People.

Sigh

Years ago, you could have suggested the strap, but that's not PC anymore.

biff

Banned for independent thought.
biff

Perhaps not?
biff

Kind of odd, I agree.

| vote for a memorial for the death of adscam, the most sinister political plot – to convert tax dollars into polical funds through the use of money laundering and paper bags full of cash- the most sinister in the history of our country.

Liberals say "yawn…it's old news" I say never forget.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Hooray. The return of "Biff". Just when things were getting boring.

Bridget

They have nothing new to present so they are re-announcing a 3 year old program, basically. That is so bizzare!

scf

It's bizarre that you would actually feel the need to criticize such a simple event. Do you complain of boredom at tea parties? Do you spit out your dinner at dinner parties?

Lord Kitchener's Own

Well, if I found out the dinner party I was at was being held to celebrate the third anniversary of the 2% reduction of the GST, then yeah, I might spit out my dinner (or have milk come out my nose).

scf

I wasn't asking you. I already knew that you spit out food.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Hey Canada, let's all upchuck dinner: they lowered some taxes!
Lord Kitchener's Own

You both seem to think my comment was one of disgust at the event, but not so. I meant to imply (particularly through the milk analogy) that if I found out the dinner I was at was to celebrate something like the above, that I'd likely spontaneously laugh out loud.

I'm not "upset" by this anniversary celebration, I find it humorous.

Bridget

This is not a tea party and it is not a dinner party either, rather it is our government creating a media event for a non -issue – kind of like a tax payer funded Conservative Party infomercial.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

What? Taxpayer money used for political purposes? Tea party, meet Adscam.
scf

If programs like this exist, it's the government's responsibility to publicize them, amongst other things. Not to mention, a simple gathering in a YMCA is not an infomercial. Media events happen all the time. Some people, like you, will whine about everything.

sbt

It's an improvement over announcing the same campaign promise 3 elections in a row, winning majorities, and doing nothing about it. The fact people still believe Liberals will actually implement universal daycare is what I find truly bizarre. Assuming it's in the Liberal platform, which it almost certainly will be, this will be the seventh election campaign the Liberals have campaigned for universal daycare.

Dave

The birth of the program, IIRC, was a sea-to-sea thing, with Giant Oversize Novelty Cheque (GONC) presentations in just about every province the Tories held seats in.
Tammy

This MP does not have a good personal record. From the time he was President of the Univ. of Manitoba Students' Union on. A bully. No real redeeming qualities.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

But to extend the support of all – in the name of making it seem less like charity – may be misguided for two reasons. First, despite what Jolyon says, government spending is not a charity – it's a redistribution. Not every citizen directly benefits from every expenditure (My kids don't play hockey, so arenas don't directly benefit me, I don't collect welfare, I'm not going to the Olympics, etc.). Following the logic of avoiding stigma for receiving subsidized daycare by need, we ought to be sending out welfare cheques to every single Canadian.

Other commenters have noted that the current Day Care Subsidy does not get fully taxed back in any instance, but even if a subsidy scheme were set up such that people over a certain income had the benefit completely taxed back, then you'd be essentially having the system I advocate for. Only those who need it, get it.

Anyway, I sure appreciate where you're coming from. But I guess we disagree on the potential negative impacts of viewing government subsidized daycare as a charity.
John

I am a soccer Mom and I applaud this celebration….just joking, I am 6 foot 2 200lbs (and not a soccer Mom) but I love this blog! But rally, the soccer Moms do love the benefit although Scott Reid was wrong, it is for manicures, not beer and popcorn!