English Language debates:

[flamingchina]

making babies would require a mrs. flamingchina.. which sadly doesn't exist at this moment... just waiting for that boat from russia to arrive.

[Hack&Lube]

The matter of fact is that these politicians realize that the Liberals have the greatest probability of winning. It doesn't matter what their answers are as long as they chip into the liberal vote as much as possible to make the smallest minority government possible.

Well, except for Harper's Same-Sex Marriage issue, but at least they are sticking to their guns on one point. It least it's an ideological point instead of Liberal pragmatism of appealing to whatever is popular.

[Jagger]

Interesting debate going on here chaps. As a PARENT of, count em, THREE children, with two of them under that magical age of six I have an opinion on this.

As my wife stays at home with the two youngest you should be in no doubt as to the platform I support. $1200 wouldn't go that far per child but it would certainly help. March, please rest assured that we would spend the money on the children too. There's a reason we've had three kids. We didn't have them for all the amazing tax perks.

As it's late and there's the off chance our youngest might have finally gone to sleep (YES!) that's all I'm going to say for now. Have to try and get my three to four hours of sleep a night now! (Look at all the fun you're all missing by not having kids!!!!!)

[ernie]

Harper stumbled in mainstream Canada by admitting he would reopen the gay marriage debate, this is just not a popular view in the majority, like it or lump it. I also thought his "smile" was very fake looking and forced for the entirety.

Actually a poll the other day had 53 % of canadians supporting the idea of the free vote in the house on this issue.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Someone else's home by a non-relative: 33.9%
Daycare Centre: 25%
Someone else's home by a relative: 17.1%
Child's home by a relative: 14.4%
Child's home by a non-relative: 9.5%

I fail to see how I'm misreading the statistics. Feel free to disagree with Statscan all you want, but according to their data, less than 15% of Canadian children are cared for at home by a relative.

I'll give you a hint...those percentages total to 100 % so unless you want to say that only 0% of kids are taken care of at by their parent(s) that statistical breakdown is of the how the kids are taken care of when they aren't taken care of by their parents (i.e. they are in some form of child care).

The very first chart in your link show 53 % of kids being taken care of by someone other than their parents (i.e. in child care). That would gel with the 47% being taken care of at home by parent(s) that other poster provided (not in child care).

[Cowperson]

So . . . . what are all your proposals to keep create jobs in the rural areas of the Maritimes so they don't have to leave for Alberta's oil patch or even go to Saint John?

Do rural Albertan's ask that same question?

Strangest question of the night - to an Albertan - although it probably made perfect sense in the close-nit Maritimes.

Cowperson

[duncan]

it would be interesting to see how things would go if someone raised a plan to take the right to vote away from WASP males. We make up less than 25% of the population, definitely not a majority. Would people rally to save these 'rights', or would it be okay to do it because the majority ruled?

[MarchHare]

So . . . . what are all your proposals to keep create jobs in the rural areas of the Maritimes so they don't have to leave for Alberta's oil patch or even go to Saint John?

Argh...I really wish I had more time to answer this question, but the cab is on its way to take me to the airport to fly to -- of all places -- Saint John.

Suffice to say, it was not the economic conditions of the Maritimes that drove me to Calgary once I finished university. It was the mythical draw of the big city. It's no secret that young people (not just in the Maritimes either) are attracted to the excitement and culture that big cities offer. While Halifax is certainly growing in that respect, the rest of Atlantic Canada is lagging far behind. I don't keep in touch with many people I went to high school with these days, but I know at the time virtually all of them had plans to move to Toronto, Vancouver, or another major city. My girlfriend is originally from Saskatoon; she also claims most of her friends in high school had plans to leave Saskatchewan for a big-city destination.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Argh...I really wish I had more time to answer this question, but the cab is on its way to take me to the airport to fly to -- of all places -- Saint John.

Suffice to say, it was not the economic conditions of the Maritimes that drove me to Calgary once I finished university. It was the mythical draw of the big city. It's no secret that young people (not just in the Maritimes either) are attracted to the excitement and culture that big cities offer. While Halifax is certainly growing in that respect, the rest of Atlantic Canada is lagging far behind. I don't keep in touch with many people I went to high school with these days, but I know at the time virtually all of them had plans to move to Toronto, Vancouver, or another major city. My girlfriend is originally from Saskatoon; she also claims most of her friends in high school had plans to leave Saskatchewan for a big-city destination.

Those are tales as old as time itself, big cities luring youth off the farms.

There was a time at the turn of the last century that most people in North America lived in a rural setting. Now the opposite is the case.

I'm just not sure what that young lady was expecting government to do to keep young people local or entice them NOT to seek a new beginning in some place more prosperous.

And having a workforce that has some mobility to it - at their own choosing - is actually somewhat healthy for a broader economy.

Its great the Maritimes are getting in on the oil boom though . . . . at least there's an enticement to stay fairly local. . . . . but not on the farm.

Cowperson

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Suppose Jack Layton proposed an NDP policy where every Canadian below the poverty line was given $1200 from the government to spend as they saw fit. Most of the posters on this board would be crying bloody murder, and for good reason. How exactly is Harper's proposed childcare plan any different?

Harper isn't cutting a cheque to parents like Ralph is doing for Albertans, he's giving a tax credit as far as my understanding goes (correct me if I'm wrong). The problem with Layton giving $1200 to people below the poverty line is that
a) you can't decide what is the poverty line to everyone's satisfaction.

and

b) poor people don't pay taxes (GST notwithstanding), there is no such thing as a tax credit to the poor, it cannot exist in reality, the only way to give them $1200 is to give them $1200 in a cheque and yes, you can bet yo' behind every taxpayer in this country will be up in arms about that one.

[flamingchina]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

So . . . . what are all your proposals to keep create jobs in the rural areas of the Maritimes so they don't have to leave for Alberta's oil patch or even go to Saint John?

Do rural Albertan's ask that same question?

Strangest question of the night - to an Albertan - although it probably made perfect sense in the close-nit Maritimes.

Cowperson

Indeed it was a bit of a wierd question. Perhaps if it focused more on just plain old jobs in he maritimes vs rural ones it would make more sense, and that is what I'd answer anyways. (as well as what the leaders seemed to answer as well)
Sadly people need to realize that the economy changes over time. You can't necessarily do the same job your father or grandfather did (no matter how much being a milkman apeals to me The people that moved to Canada left for a reason, greater economic prosperity (ignorning refugees here, as they are a small proportion). It's the same thing now, move for greater economic prosperity. Humans have done this for thousands and thousands of years.
It's not the governments responsibility to make sure there are jobs for your in your small town.
If you live in armpit newfoundland, and it just happens that there are jobs in St. Johns, well you know what, you should probably move.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I think it's hypocritical to suggest that Canadian parents are any more deserving of $1200/year than poor Canadians.

It is not hypocritical in the least. Producing children is a public good. You want to reward and encourage people to have children, but not reward and encourage people to be poor.

[duncan]

Originally Posted by Incinerator

Harper isn't cutting a cheque to parents like Ralph is doing for Albertans, he's giving a tax credit as far as my understanding goes (correct me if I'm wrong). The problem with Layton giving $1200 to people below the poverty line is that
a) you can't decide what is the poverty line to everyone's satisfaction.

and

b) poor people don't pay taxes (GST notwithstanding), there is no such thing as a tax credit to the poor, it cannot exist in reality, the only way to give them $1200 is to give them $1200 in a cheque and yes, you can bet yo' behind every taxpayer in this country will be up in arms about that one.

The poverty line, by Federal Standards is roughly $14000 for a single person, $28000 for a family of 4. There are many people who fall into that income bracket, who struggle while working 2 minimum wage jobs. They do pay taxes, and a tax break could easily be granted to them.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

It is not hypocritical in the least. Producing children is a public good. You want to reward and encourage people to have children, but not reward and encourage people to be poor.

Welfare isn't a reward or encouragement. it's a handout to encourage people back on their feet so they can be more productive members of society which is also public good. (I know this is not always how it goes, but just like the child care checks, it is in principal supposed to be for public good)

[flamingchina]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Welfare isn't a reward or encouragement. it's a handout to encourage people back on their feet so they can be more productive members of society which is also public good. (I know this is not always how it goes, but just like the child care checks, it is in principal supposed to be for public good)

Economically it is payment though(choice of two things, which gives you more utility) the people have a choice, welfare or work. if the reward for not working is high enough, people won't. This is why countries that have higher welfare, have higher unemployment. (ie Canada vs. the US, France Vs. UK)
This is why in Canada, we have unemployment right now of about 6.5, and we're at full employment. (we can't find people to work)

*edited to change the word reward to payment, reward works as well, but not what I'm trying to get at

[Maritime Q-Scout]

just want to make a quick respond to the Maritimers moving out west due to jobs comment above. I haven't been reading this thread post for post so forgive me if I say a something that's previously been stated. I'm on the clock and well killing time at once.

As a Maritimer I'm seeing not only my friends move out West, but my intelligent friends (engineers, accountants, etc) move to your province. That's a bit of a problem for this part of the country (mind you I've flagged a few positions with the Alberta Government I'd like to apply for so alas I'm willing to do the same thing).

That is a problem.

However, that's not the biggest problem, I have three very good female friends that moved to your fine city... all of them smoking hot. Do my ugly friends move out West? NO! Ergo, if you don't want to solve the problem, but want to keep Maritimers happy, keep the hotties here and hire the fuglies please

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by flamingchina

Economically it is payment though(choice of two things, which gives you more utility) the people have a choice, welfare or work. if the reward for not working is high enough, people won't. This is why countries that have higher welfare, have higher unemployment. (ie Canada vs. the US, France Vs. UK)
This is why in Canada, we have unemployment right now of about 6.5, and we're at full employment. (we can't find people to work)

*edited to change the word reward to payment, reward works as well, but not what I'm trying to get at

Actually, while unemployment is higher in countries with better EI, the reason is not as you describe necessarily.

Unemployment statistics are not drawn from those who are receiving EI, they are drawn from those who are actively seeking employment. If you have a stay at home mom drawing EI, but she isn't looking for work, she isn't considered unemployed when it comes to that particular stat. Likewise, if you have someone who has looked for work, but can't find any, and quits looking, they are no longer considered unemployed in regards to that stat.

The reason unemployment is so high is because many people are trained for jobs there aren't any of, so don't have the qualification needed in today's marketplace. If everyone goes out and gets an IT degree, and people only want to hire chemists, we get high unemployment. The wage a person earns in Canada on EI are ridiculously low, and a person usually has to be actively searching for employment to get those wages.

[FlamesAddiction]

Like Duceppe pointed out in the debate, it is not just Maritimers who have to become mobile. The town I grew up in (Northwestern Ontario) is shrinking incredibly. In fact, most northern communities in Ontario and Quebec have the same problem as Atlantic Canada.

The problem is that we allowed our country to become specialized as mainly a producer of natural resources. This is not a "Liberal" or "Conservative" doing, but someone needs to fix it. Who is the best person for that? IMO, we need to revert back to 1950s-ish isolationism. I'm not saying we need to culturally revert back, but economically, I think it would be good. Screw free trade and globalization.

[evman150]

Did anyone else see robot man fixing himself when they switched to the side camera while one of the other guys was talking? I thought that was pretty funny.

And also, when it comes to the whole gay marriage thing, I think Martin said it well:

"In my view if you won't protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms then you have no business trying to become the prime minister of Canada".

Paul Martin believes in the Charter. Jack Layton believes in the Charter. Even Gilles Duceppe believes in the Charter. Stephen Harper has let it be known that he does not believe in the Charter.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I want a Prime Minister who will protect the rights and freedoms of ALL Canadians.

And the quote of the election so far (Duceppe):

"The religion of some should not constitute the laws for everyone".

[Footscray]

Hey, thought some of you guys might be interested in this, the first poll about the debates from the strategic counsel (a pretty mainstream polling company). Really low impact on people's opinions overall but must be a strange winner to alot of us given the nature of the conversation here myself included (almost completely backwards). Martin wins this poll by 6 percent (21%) followed by Duceppe (15%) with Harper (11%) and then Layton (6%) bringing up the rear. 47% couldn't or wouldn't pick a winner. A feeling of apathy is pretty pervasive among my friends right now, maybe it will pick up next month.

http://www.ctv.ca//servlet/ArticleNe...on2006&no_ads=

Quite a few other poll questions included in the article as well FYI politcal junkies