• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Federal Election 44 - Sep 2021

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,440
Points
1,110
Just reading the CPC platform now.

create a million jobs. Good.
various loans and tax incentives for small businesses. Depends.
GST free month. Bad idea
Defund CBC. Expect media backlash
Balance the budget in 10 years. Light on details, especially if creating a GST free month.
Pay parents directly instead of sub sized day care. Reimburse at tax time. Not as appealing.
Ban foreign home buyers for two years.

looks like a lot of spending…
That's what I understand anyways.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,232
Points
1,110
Balancing the budget being light on details is better than the budget will balance itself.
No, it is the same. Without a concrete plan, it is just wishful thinking, to the same level as saying that the budget will balance itself.

Pay parents for day care is a great idea, we don't need more albatross government institutions. The private sector will create the spaces if there's a glut of individuals looking for them with free money.

There have been tons of parents looking to give money to put kids in daycare for just a little leas than a year in Quebec and the private sector did not create the spaces.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,585
Points
1,060
I feel like there was some sort of government decision for the last 18 months that limited space availability. Some sort of lock down...
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,232
Points
1,110
I feel like there was some sort of government decision for the last 18 months that limited space availability. Some sort of lock down...
Even when the conditions were eased, last summer, daycare spaces did not meet the demand.
 

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,440
Points
1,110

"Canada’s Conservatives will convert the Child Care Expense Deduction into a refundable tax credit covering up to 75% of the cost of child care for lower income families. This will massively increase the support that lower income families receive and provide more assistance to almost all families. We will also pay out the deduction over the course of the year so that families do not have to pay the cost of child care and then get the money back later"

"OUR CHILD CARE PLAN UNDER OUR PLAN, ALL FAMILIES WITH INCOME UNDER $150,000 WILL BE BETTER OFF, WITH THE MOST SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT GOING TO FAMILIES WITH INCOME UNDER $50,000. THE BIGGEST BOOST WILL BE TO LOW AND MIDDLE-INCOME FAMILIES - MAKING CHILD CARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE AFFORDABLE. FOR EXAMPLE,
• A FAMILY WITH AN INCOME OF $30,000 CAN TODAY CLAIM A MAXIMUM OF $1,200. UNDER OUR PLAN THEY WILL RECEIVE UP TO $6,000.
• A FAMILY WITH AN INCOME OF $50,000 CAN TODAY CLAIM A MAXIMUM OF $1,200. UNDER OUR PLAN THEY WILL RECEIVE UP TO $5,200.
• A FAMILY WITH AN INCOME OF $80,000 CAN TODAY CLAIM A MAXIMUM OF $1,200. UNDER OUR PLAN THEY WILL RECEIVE UP TO $4,800.
• A FAMILY WITH AN INCOME OF $120,000 CAN TODAY CLAIM A MAXIMUM OF $1,640. UNDER OUR PLAN THEY WILL RECEIVE UP TO $4,560"

Sorry for the all caps, copy pasted from the CPC platform.

So when childcare can cost upwards of 1500-2000 a month, 18000-24000 a year, I do not see how it this will cover 75 percent.

And 75 percent of 24000 is still 6000, or half what the LPC is offering to cover. The LPC plan would cost families around 200 per month per child, this would cost 400-500 per month for childcare, and I am unaware is this tax credit is for all kids that someone would have in daycare. If it is, then for each kid a person needs to put into daycare, the less this plan would do for them.

If childcare is what people are voting on, I don't see this CPC plan as the one people will go for.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
2,844
Points
1,010
create a million jobs.

Hogwash. Governments don't "create jobs", except for the people hired to work in public service.

If they mean, "remove government-mandated impediments and disincentives to job creation", they might have a useful idea.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,585
Points
1,060
Even when the conditions were eased, last summer, daycare spaces did not meet the demand.
Good, so you're saying Quebec's taxpayer subsidized model doesn't work to create enough spaces for child care?
 

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,440
Points
1,110
Good, so you're saying Quebec's taxpayer subsidized model doesn't work to create enough spaces for child care?
The quebec model plans to cover 76 percent of all childcare spaces, with the private sector providing the rest.
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,086
Points
1,160
Not to minimise anything but these are contractors correct? I wonder what the contract might actually detail in regards to getting them out or is that up to the company that employs them?

The contract probably so states, but Canada's experience with the company that employed the embassy guards at the time of the 2016 bombing that killed 15 of them should have been a cautionary tale that contract details mean nothing.

Some of that tale

And the Nepali view of current events with regard to their nationals in Afghanistan.
 

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,440
Points
1,110
Defund the CBC. So...Radio Canada would be effected as well?

Yeah, I think that dumping on Quebec, taking away the money for Childcare and anything targeted at Radio Canada, is a recipe for disaster in that province.

So clearly they don't want to be competitive in Quebec, and I guess I'm curious as what their plan really is here with this platform. Who are they targeting? Conservative voters probably like this, but they were voting for this party anyways.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,423
Points
1,040
Hogwash. Governments don't "create jobs", except for the people hired to work in public service.

If they mean, "remove government-mandated impediments and disincentives to job creation", they might have a useful idea.
They did have a note in there about offsetting up to 50% of a new employees wages once CEWS ends to help get people hired again. That idea generally makes sense, and seems to be a pretty good way to help get people working again, with a relatively low amount of paperwork/oversight. We already have all kinds of policies to 'Buy/build in Canada' tied to our procurements, which is a pretty good indirect way to 'create jobs' in Canada (via a private sector subcontract) but there are usually programs like this for summer student work that offset the hiring costs that seem to work well.

They do have talk about creating a 'Minister of Red Tape'; they could do that internally and save a lot of public service LOE on a whack of policy/oversight. Usually the approval/auditing process costs more in HR time then the actual trip itself.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
2,844
Points
1,010
If a job is viable it doesn't need subsidy. If it isn't viable, money available to subsidize it should be put to better use. Paying employers to pay employees to do jobs that can't pay for themselves makes us all a little poorer. There is no shortage of places government has put its fat little fingers in efforts to solve some problem someone agitated for solving. The low-hanging fruit is to take those fat fingers out. Most of these programs only amount to being transfers, and transfers just shift money from one place to another - destroy here, in order to create there, but only talk about the creation. Actually, a net loss, once the transaction costs of having people do stuff to make it happen are accounted.

Collectively, we've known this for over 100 years.
 

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,440
Points
1,110
If a job is viable it doesn't need subsidy. If it isn't viable, money available to subsidize it should be put to better use. Paying employers to pay employees to do jobs that can't pay for themselves makes us all a little poorer. There is no shortage of places government has put its fat little fingers in efforts to solve some problem someone agitated for solving. The low-hanging fruit is to take those fat fingers out. Most of these programs only amount to being transfers, and transfers just shift money from one place to another - destroy here, in order to create there, but only talk about the creation. Actually, a net loss, once the transaction costs of having people do stuff to make it happen are accounted.

Collectively, we've known this for over 100 years.
Wonder if we should end all oil subsidies then.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,428
Points
1,090
So a few points.

1. Getting rid of the LPC childcare plan. They better communicate this better. Their plan to directly give parents money is actually a pretty good thing. It mean, if I read that right, that the CHOICE, is really mine. I can go with whatever daycare I want or even keep the kids at home. But…

Ottawa just signed a bunch of deals. Quebec is getting a good chunk. So the CPC has already damaged its chances there. I suspect this may hurt the CPC long term if the campaign becomes about childcare.
unless they have a plan to front end the money this isn’t as appealing.

2. Getting an actual platform out first with actual POLICY was a good move. It’s a short campaign, defines the CPC before the LPC can. “introduces” O’toole. All good things strategically. Doesn’t matter if you agree or not they are trying to take the initiative. A good opening move in my mind. Allows them to attack what comes out of the LPC now and keep the initiative.

we’ll see how this goes.
 

kratz

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
120
Points
880
I'm glad to see a pkatform already, from one of the parties. We can begin to look at options and compare.
 

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,440
Points
1,110
I'm glad to see a pkatform already, from one of the parties. We can begin to look at options and compare.
2. Getting an actual platform out first with actual POLICY was a good move. It’s a short campaign, defines the CPC before the LPC can. “introduces” O’toole. All good things strategically. Doesn’t matter if you agree or not they are trying to take the initiative. A good opening move in my mind. Allows them to attack what comes out of the LPC now and keep the initiative.
Didn't the NDP come out with a platform a few days ago?
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,423
Points
1,040
If a job is viable it doesn't need subsidy. If it isn't viable, money available to subsidize it should be put to better use. Paying employers to pay employees to do jobs that can't pay for themselves makes us all a little poorer. There is no shortage of places government has put its fat little fingers in efforts to solve some problem someone agitated for solving. The low-hanging fruit is to take those fat fingers out. Most of these programs only amount to being transfers, and transfers just shift money from one place to another - destroy here, in order to create there, but only talk about the creation. Actually, a net loss, once the transaction costs of having people do stuff to make it happen are accounted.

Collectively, we've known this for over 100 years.
Sure, in normal times, subsidies aren't required, but think it makes some sense when we are talking about during a kick-start post a global pandemic; if the government is taking some of the salary liabilities for a short term timeline, that reduces the risk/overhead to companies who aren't sure if they are going to re-hire until the economy starts rolling again.

The platform has it for a six month time period, which I think is reasonable. If, after six months, business levels dont' support it, then we're just back to paying unemployment benefits. If work has picked up, then the job is still viable and they'll keep the person there. People not working has a direct cost to the GoC (federally or provincially) so would rather spend money on programs to keep people working than to be unemployed.

There were similar temporary programs for some of the industries that were getting battered around by some of the random tariff wars with the US; instead of laying people off they were able to get partial unemployment for some of the plant workers. That let the plants slow down production (to 4 days a week) but the workers kept a pretty steady salary. Way cheaper than paying full unemployment, and when production picked back up it was done, without the efficiency loss of needing to hire new workers.
 
Top