I think it's time for another classic wmtc discussion.
Lately I've heard from many Americans who are in the middle of the application process to emigrate to Canada. This is the wave of people who started downloading forms immediately after the 2004 "election," and are now in various stages of planning and waiting.
I recall how, in early November, various mainstream media were asking, Are people really moving? Is there really an exodus to Canada? Many didn't even bother to do enough homework to learn that disaffected Americans couldn't just pick up and move to Canada. Here we are, almost mid-year in 2006, and that exodus, no matter how large or small, is still waiting for the green light.
Among the people who have recently contacted me was a family who has concerns about how Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party may be changing Canada. They are leaving a community in which they have deep roots, and they want to feel more sure about what they're getting in return. They want to know, to use an easy shorthand, Is Canada becoming more like the US?
Of course, that question can't be fully answered until we see how this minority government fares, how inclined the Bloc will be to prop up a government that seems (to me) not very popular.
But even beyond that, I'm still not worried. I dislike Stephen Harper and most of what he stands for, but I wasn't panicked after the election, and I'm still not. I admit that could be my own ignorance, or a blind spot, wanting to see my choices affirmed. (Which they are, by the way - every day.) But I think my eyes are wide open when I say it's hard for me to get overly concerned.
I still see the current government as a brief time-out while the Liberals regroup. Canada remains more secular than the US, less invested in military intervention (an understatement), and more committed to the welfare of its citizens and residents. It is, and I believe will remain, a more open society, less restrictive of individual choices, more committed to personal liberty and diversity - and to the responsibilities of individuals to make that possible. At the same time, Canadians' deep-rooted concerns about their country being swallowed up by the 800-pound gorilla to the south help keep it on the right track.
What do you think?
54 comments:
I completely agree. In "right/left" jargon - Canada (Alberta aside) could move quite a ways to the "right" and still be "left" of the US. Of course, whether it will or not *is* still an open question.
Thanks for posting your thoughts on this. I have entertained similar questions and, as I think I posted earlier, even with a slight shift to the right, the overall "values position" of Canada is still far more in sync with mine than is the US. Just pick up any major US newspaper any day...
Okay, one example - the Canadian Supreme Court actually believes that it has a mandate to insure the civil rights of all people. Uh - not so much the US Supreme Court, that's for sure.
The thing I notice most about Canadian politicians and politics in general is that they don't seem to be as reactionary. Also - the population in general is better educated. I know more Canadians than Americans who can name all 50 stats. I also can't think of any American i've ever met (myself included) who knew there were 10 provinces and 3 territories. Better educated population means a government who knows they can't pull one over on the people.
Also - the beer is far better here.
While a post-2004 exodus to Canada may still be on hold, I was part of a 2003 exodus to the UK. :-)
My partner and I hope, though, that the Canadian politics continue to hold to the left of the US. We are thinking about immigrating there in a few years.
Interesting to read about Americans heading to Canada in droves, plus these comments, just after coming from here: http://teriandtom.blogspot.com/
I didn't see the sky fall after Harper one, and doubt that it would even if the next government was a conservtive majority.
After all, Harper could probably run in the U.S. as a Democrat, and he'd be considered liberal by many. Canada and the U.S. have diverged so much in the past 15 years or so that comparisons are almost meaningles.
I hope you are right. Still, I think we handed the keys of the country over to a bunch af yahoos.
« disaffected Americans couldn't just pick up and move to Canada»
The nerve! You'd almost think it was a different country! (There are, apparently, some people in Portland who didn't realize that [or that thought that NAFTA overruled border controls]; I've heard stories of people who just packed up and headed north, only to be (politely) turned back at the BC border. Um, oops; I'd imagine that having that sort of entry attempt on file would help a subsequent attempt to get an immigrant visa.)
What I've found is that even including the time scary stories about taking a year to gather documentation and another year to get approval that the most time-consuming part of emigrating out of the US is convincing the rest of the family that we need to GTFOOD; I started pushing for leaving in late 2003 and I STILL haven't convinced them that we really need to get out.
Of course they're yahoos....
But they're our yahoos. They might slow things down a little, but I don't see anything magic up Harper's sleaves that would reverse the direction of the country. That would require a major crises of some sort, and our politicians just don't seem to have the same skill at manufacturing them as our American cousins do.
Case in point, the re-opening of the marriage debate. Harper is going to allow a free vote in a minority government situation, which is highly unlikely to result in an overturn, but will allow Harper to claim he respected his election promise. He can claim it's not his fault that Liberals, Bloc, and NDP would vote against it. If this were the states, the whole media PR machine would kick into overtime to ensure the opposition parties had no choice except to vote with the governing party.
Hey all,
This is my fave study-procrastination site, always sure to be more interesting than whatever I'm supposed to be studying.
Anyways, I have to step in in defense of Alberta MSEH. According to Michael Adams' ongoing research at environics (erg.environics.net)Alberta falls to the left of even Vermont (the furthest left state in this survey) in the various polls of social conservatism that form the bases of his books.
In a talk of his that I saw on CPAC (yes, another procrastination technique) the poll for the book "Sex in the Snow" asked questions like "The husband is the head of the head of the household" and scored on a Likart scale ("totally disagree" to "totally agree"). I don't know why that question specifically stands out for me.... Anyways, there were other measures of things like individual responsibility to a common good, Libertarianism and government control, importance of diversity, etc.
So, the gist was that despite economic conservatism in Alberta, socially their values are more closely aligned to other Canadians than to Americans (Lil' Stevie's parrotting of Shrub notwithstanding...).
I would be interested in hearing from anyone who'd actually read "Fire and Ice", "American Backlash" or "Sex in the Snow".
Anyways, that's my $0.02.
Jen
Great subject! BIG subject!
Anyway, I am trying to remain optimistic, because I do agree with L-girl that the so-cons in the Conservative party do not represent the sensibilities of most Canadians. I do fear though that we are a bit too complacent (naïve?) and perhaps take our relatively sane and reasonable society for granted.
I’d like to think (hope, pray) that the social conservatism thing isn’t going to fly here, and that headlines like the one that appeared in today’s Globe and Mail about daycare and the Conservative party “handing” over public relations on this issue to groups like the Canada Family Action Coalition are not doing Harper any favours (I tried to find an online link to the article, but - and I find this a bit odd, actually - couldn’t).
On the other hand, I also don’t think that a majority of Americans actually think that universal and free access to health care is some kind of insane socialist conspiracy, nor do I believe that they really think that women should have absolutely no control over their bodies. But this hasn’t stopped the well funded and well organized minority of fundamentalist wingnuts from implementing their agendas in the U.S.
And these groups are not completely uninvolved in Canadian politics.
Websites like this one: www.harperstiestousa.org really really disturb me.
However, on the other hand (okay, I know I only have two hands), if this (taken from the main page of the Canada Family Action Coalition website) is the best that the Canadian social conservative movement can offer, perhaps I can rest easy:
“Canada does not need another socialist “care” system. Health care, the socialist monopoly is inoperable the way it is.
Two options: money to an institution or money to parents. Which do you chose?
But socialists want to force provinces to warehouse children in the socialized “daycare” system that cost billions.
Stop it now.”
I guess they can’t afford proofreaders. Or not ones that understand basic rules of English grammar, anyway.
The daycare debate should be interesting. Though I hope that it gets better than it has been so far, which has amounted to one side being able to frame the debate solely in their terms – as a question of “choice” for parents (read: wives) who want to stay home and raise their kids. Very very little in the mainstream press about the choices of poor women, of single women, that access to well run daycares provide. Is it just me, or have feminist (mainstream) journalists completely dropped the ball on this one?
Anyway, I think that the daycare issue and how its covered and received by Canadians, will be enlightening, insofar as what it might tell us about the direction that Canadians want for our country.
My two cents. Great topic. I’m really interested in what others have to say about this.
Lisa
Jeffrey Simpson has a nice "chat with readers" bit in today's online globe and mail where he tees off on the daycare debate.
My short answer: Our countries are different. One reason made-in-USA political campaigns won't work up here is for precisely this reason--they fail to fully appreciate those differences. Similarly, our neuroses about creeping Republicanism are precisely that--unfounded, and not giving ourselves enough credit.
Plus, we're going to invade with werewolves in 2010 anyway.
Hey thanks, everyone!
I'm the mom of the American family that L-girl referred to at the beginning of her posting. Your comments are so helpful.
I'm in my fifties and have been very politically active since I was fifteen. We've got two highly draftable teen-age sons, and I just can't stand paying my taxes to the war machine anymore, and being surrounded by people who swallow the endless propaganda hook, line, and sinker. I grew up during the cold war and I remember feeling so sorry for people in the USSR whose only news source was government propaganda, thanks to Pravda. Now we've got our own Pravda, in the form of corporate-owned media. Why bother with the facts when there are so many outlets for lies?
Anyway, I know what you mean, orc, about convincing your family. Except in our case, my immediate family (my husband and two sons) are fully on board. It's just our many friends and extended family members who are largely unsupportive of our leaving the US for Canada...and they just don't seem to understand why we would leave behind our community here and give up working for postitive change here in the US. That's a tough conversation.
Anyway, thanks again everyone for your input! In my panicked moments during this big transition, I'll come back and read your comments from today.
Thanks for the comments, all.
After all, Harper could probably run in the U.S. as a Democrat, and he'd be considered liberal by many. Canada and the U.S. have diverged so much in the past 15 years or so that comparisons are almost meaningless.
I agree with this completely.
Still, I think we handed the keys of the country over to a bunch af yahoos.
I agree with this too! But Kyle's response is on the money - they're yahoos, but they're not US yahoos, they're not going to remake Canada. IMO.
Anyways, I have to step in in defense of Alberta MSEH. According to Michael Adams' ongoing research at environics (erg.environics.net)Alberta falls to the left of even Vermont (the furthest left state in this survey) in the various polls of social conservatism that form the bases of his books.
You know, I see this thrown around all the time, along with the "man is the head of the household" poll. But it's very, very difficult to believe. I grant you I have not been to Alberta, I only see Albertans on the CBC and on the blogosphere. But I've spent a lot of time in Vermont. And I tell you, this just does not ring true to me at all.
But then, nothing I've ever seen from Michael Adams makes any sense to me. Everyone quotes him as an authority, but his image of the US doesn't look like anything I'm familiar with.
JJJP, I'm so happy to provide you with a place to procrastinate - stop by more often! :)
Lisa, great stuff, I heartily agree.
I do fear though that we are a bit too complacent (naïve?) and perhaps take our relatively sane and reasonable society for granted.
I can see that. It's a scary thought.
I'd like to think (hope, pray) that the social conservatism thing isn't going to fly here, and that headlines like the one that appeared in today’s Globe and Mail about daycare and the Conservative party "handing" over public relations on this issue to groups like the Canada Family Action Coalition are not doing Harper any favours (I tried to find an online link to the article, but - and I find this a bit odd, actually - couldn't).
I saw that story, too (it is online, but you need a subscription), and I agree that moves like that probably don't win points for Harper's bunch.
On the other hand, I also don't think that a majority of Americans actually think that universal and free access to health care is some kind of insane socialist conspiracy, nor do I believe that they really think that women should have absolutely no control over their bodies. But this hasn't stopped the well funded and well organized minority of fundamentalist wingnuts from implementing their agendas in the U.S.
Well said!! I thank you for that. I get angry/frustrated/sad (depending on my mood) at the constant portrayal of the US as 100% reactionary Bush country, by people who ought to know better.
It's important to note, too, that the religious right didn't come into their power over night. When I was a pro-choice activist during the Reagan years, we were like lunatics crying in the wilderness. Mainstream liberals thought we were alarmists. It was very hard to get people to take the threat seriously.
And the anti-choice, anti-women, anti-progress coalition built and built and built their power on the state and local level. And now they control the country, often without its consent.
You know, I see this thrown around all the time, along with the "man is the head of the household" poll. But it's very, very difficult to believe. I grant you I have not been to Alberta, I only see Albertans on the CBC and on the blogosphere. But I've spent a lot of time in Vermont. And I tell you, this just does not ring true to me at all.
A good book to start about the contradictions in Alberta is Against the Grain by Catherine Ford. (An interesting situation she brought up was that when Klein was first elected, he ran against an anti-abortionist. Klein's position -- abortion is a matter between the woman, God, and her doctor.... I believe it's Ford.... I've been reading a few too many books on Alberta lately). And you've got to keep in mind that this is a province that wants to keep health care in public hands -- there were massive amounts of protests against Klein's third way.
If there's a tendancy to vote for the Conservative party, it's possible that it's more on identification with the party -- in the same way Quebecers favour voting for the Bloc, but not necessarily for the separatist agenda.
More later....
Maybe to highlight that divide a bit:
This is what the Democrats promised in 2004
- Defend America against attack at all costs. "the world should be on notice that we will
take every possible measure to defend ourselves ...we will respond with overwhelming and devastating force."
- Add 40,000 new soldiers
- Invest billions into clean coal technology
- Add 100,000 cops to to the streets
- Toughen penalties on violent crimes (despite the fact that the U.S. already imprisons more of its population then any other developed nation)
- Strengthen portions of the Patriot Act
- Build more federal highways
- Cut taxes for middle class Americans
- Open millions of acres of land to hunting and fishing
- End corporate welfare
This is what the Conservative Party promised in 2006
- Will not support any legislation to regulate abortion
- End corporate welfare
- Introduce tax credits for transit passes
- Add mandatory minimum sentencing for violent crimes
- Reverse the proposed Liberal income tax cut and instead cut the GST by 2% over five years
- Pay parents with children under 6 $100 a month to help with child care payments
- Introduce an ethics bill
- Reduce the power of the Prime Minister
- Reduce waiting times in hospitals
- Introduce small business tax incentives
End corporate welfare
ROFLMAO. Democrats promising to end corporate welfare - what a funny joke! They might as well promise to live without breathing air.
Good comparison Kyle, thanks.
And you've got to keep in mind that this is a province that wants to keep health care in public hands -- there were massive amounts of protests against Klein's third way.
Well, that's good to know. What doesn't ring true to me is the characterization of Vermont - and actually, most of Adams's characterizations of the US. His stuff just doesn't illustrate the US I lived in my entire life.
Kyle, it might also be worth noting that Harper has already broken many of the campaign promises you list there.
- The ethics bill does not do what it was promised to do. For example, the access to information provisions in it have been removed, and have been put into a separate bill which has to go through committee before it reaches parliament.
- Far from weakening the power of the prime minister, Harper has taken the prime ministerial power he railed against on the other side of the floor -- namely, the PM's single-handed appointment of committees.
- It is not clear, from what Harper and other senior gov't officials have said, whether he's actually going to roll back the Liberal tax cut (and it remains to be seen what the relative effects of the Liberal cuts vs the GST cut).
Another point is that Harper is planning to re-open the SSM debate in parliament, for, uh, some reason. I'm not sure what side of the debate that puts him on in the USA.
Not trying to just open fire with an anti-Harper screed, here. I just think that he's made a lot of promises that sound great during an election but are a little trickier to get on the books than we'd like.
The child care issue seems to be the big one right now and, while I prefer the Liberal plan, I don't see the Conservatives as doing much damage.
In reality, the Liberal's child care plan hadn't gotten off the ground yet and therefore all the Conservatives are promising is to not implement it. Oh yeah, and provide a tax break to families.
The only thing that really irks me about the tax credit is to imply that a fully-taxable $1200 credit has anything to do with child care. C'mon, it's a tax credit. It's like saying the GST cut is so that people can give more money to environmental charities, therefore it is a "environmental program". What a bunch of hooey.
Jen wrote: "Anyways, I have to step in in defense of Alberta MSEH. According to Michael Adams' ongoing research at environics (erg.environics.net)Alberta falls to the left of even Vermont (the furthest left state in this survey) in the various polls of social conservatism that form the bases of his books."
That's interesting to hear! I do have to note that it's my Canadian colleagues who, when I first broached the subject of moving to Canada, said, "Anywhere but Alberta" and referred to it as akin to "red state." Not saying they're right, but just wanted to note that my sources are Canadian!
BTW, I read "Fire and Ice" quite a while back and have to confess not remembering what Adams might have said about Alberta.
Thanks for your thoughts and, as always, to L-girl for stimulating such lively exchange and great procrastination fodder! -)
- The ethics bill does not do what it was promised to do. For example, the access to information provisions in it have been removed, and have been put into a separate bill which has to go through committee before it reaches parliament.
Isn't that just an implementation strategy? And, after all, most bills go through a committee stage after second reading. If this is vetted by the committee in advance, it will go through the three stages quickly. I'm not to worried about how it's done (omnibus bill versus separate bills), just that it's done.
- Far from weakening the power of the prime minister, Harper has taken the prime ministerial power he railed against on the other side of the floor -- namely, the PM's single-handed appointment of committees.
Aboslutely. And the centralized communication strategy is simply awful... cabinet minsiters should be available to talk to the media about anything they demand. They don't have to answer fully, but the media must have the ability to be the fifth estate.
(That being said, as Peter MacKay has shown about five times now, maybe keeping one's mouth shut is a good idea.)
- It is not clear, from what Harper and other senior gov't officials have said, whether he's actually going to roll back the Liberal tax cut (and it remains to be seen what the relative effects of the Liberal cuts vs the GST cut).
Actually that's a kept promise (albeit not one I agree with)... in fact, he repeatedly said he would roll back the Liberal promises in the October mini-budget and implement his own plan. He said this both during, and after the election. Where's the contradiction coming from?
Another point is that Harper is planning to re-open the SSM debate in parliament, for, uh, some reason. I'm not sure what side of the debate that puts him on in the USA.
Again, a kept promise. Not one I agree with again, but a promise nonetheless. And he knows it's toothless... even if he had a majority, it's unlikely it would pass. Almost all of the Liberals, Bloc and NDP will vote against it, as will close to half (if not over half) of his own party. It's being done simply to appease the part of the public who thought having the Liberal Cabinet Ministers whipped on the subject was inappropriate.
The original SSM vote would have passed even if the cabinet was free to vote... the vote was 158-133 IIRC. Only one cabinet minister resigned so that he could vote against (Joe Comuzzi, Minister Responsible for Northern Ontario).
Oh, and the Conservatives stated that they would not use the Notwithstanding clause to override the courts should the SSM bill be overturned.
So the worst that could happen would be a Same Sex Union, fully equal under law but not called marriage (the court hinted they may be able to accept this). But it wouldn't be retroactive. The court certainly wouldn't allow anything less.
Kyle, it might also be worth noting that Harper has already broken many of the campaign promises you list there.
Do you think the Democrats would have kept theirs? It wasn't really a "who's more truthful" comparison, the point was that the Conservative party's platform would hardly be considered far right in the U.S. The U.S. has drifted so far to the right that their "left" would be considered slightly right-of-centre by our standards on many issues.
I mean, while we were debating whether to legalize SSM, they we're debating whether to explicitly forbid in their constitution.
I have lived in Canada all my life (a long enough time). I have seen governments come and go but can't remember getting panicky about what would happen - whether we would go to war or change our views on inusring the civil rights of all people. I don't like Stephen Harper and I didn't vote for him. However; do I think he will turn Canada into the US north? Not at all. For thirty years, I lived in a "border town" -the United States of America was ten minutes away. I can't ever remember wanting to live there for any reason. I think that the same sex decisions will survive no matter what he tries to do. The state of our health care system concerns me but I have hope that it also will survive. Am I afraid of Stephen Harper? Not at all.
Fear? no. But don't underestimate the man, either. What's called for is vigilance.
Here's a good example from Crawl Across the Ocean: Read the whole thing, but here's a sample.
Take the Kyoto Accord, for example. If the Conservatives wanted to pass a bill directly aimed at reducing action taken by the government towards solving global warming, they would likely face opposition from all parties and face defeat over the issue. But there is no need for them to do this.
The government is still young and already we see that there are plans to cut funding for climate change programs at Environment Canada by 80%. On top of that the Ministry has taken action to prevent an Environment Canada scientist from speaking publicly about his novel on climate change. When columnist Terry Glavin contacted the Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation and Research Network (C-CIARN - a federal agency), this is the response he got, "I'm not supposed to talk to you." Furthermore, the government has announced that Canada will not meet its emissions targets under Kyoto, calling them unrealistic.
None of this, as [other blogger] pointed out, will get recorded in Hansard and none of it was mentioned in the Conservative platform.
These guys have a plan, and they're aiming at a majority. And while they may not succeed in creating a United States of Canada, they can still do lots of damage.
And bcdc, this might be helpful when you explain to people. Moving to Canada--or any country--doesn't mean that you're going to stop working for positive change. It just means you're working for positive change somewhere else.
Different context, different yardsticks, different issues, but still the same fight.
Would they yap if lived in Georgia and you were moving to California? Or Vermont? It's the same thing, to a large degree.
Besides, you have draftable teenagers. Anyone who doesn't grant you that argument needs their head examined.
Scott, I don't think Kyle's point was a defense of Harper. I've never known Kyle to do that. :)
The U.S. has drifted so far to the right that their "left" would be considered slightly right-of-centre by our standards on many issues.
I took that as the point of Kyle's point. There are many US Democrats who are far more conservative than Stephen Harper's Conservatives. And they're not fringe people either - they have power within the party.
Soogirl, I appreciate your comment. It's affirming of my own take.
But I also appreciate what Wrye is saying re vigilance - xref Lisa, above, about complacency.
It's possible to be vigilant and "stand on guard" (as the song says) without being afraid. Liberties and democracy do not protect themselves.
The child care issue seems to be the big one right now and, while I prefer the Liberal plan, I don't see the Conservatives as doing much damage.
If they don't fund child care spaces, they do damage. If they pass this off as a strategy for helping people raise their families, they do damage.
The only thing that really irks me about the tax credit is to imply that a fully-taxable $1200 credit has anything to do with child care. C'mon, it's a tax credit.
As a letter writer in today's G&M said: "Please. Call it a child allowance. Call it a baby bonus. Call it the Taxable Tory Tot Pittance. Just don't call it a "daycare plan."
Moving to Canada--or any country--doesn't mean that you're going to stop working for positive change. It just means you're working for positive change somewhere else.
Yes!! (Thank you!) That's what I've always said. It's only people who are hung up on nationalism that can't comprehend that.
Besides, you have draftable teenagers. Anyone who doesn't grant you that argument needs their head examined.
Yup. Case closed.
(Not that making your own decisions and living your own life needs any further justification! )
Hi,
I came across your op-ed piece in the Globe and Mail when I was on my way home to Edmotnon for Spring Break. I recently moved from Toronto to New York City for grad school, and was happy to see someone mirror and articulate my own thoughts on the subtle differences beteween Canada and the United States.
Although I enjoy the excitment of New York, the values inherrant in being Canadian become far more clear after having lived in the United States for an extended period of time. The unconscious self-sacrifice of individuals to benefit a collective whole is what I see missing here in New York. I see this reflected in many day-to-day activities- some as simple as having a package delivered or dealing with local banks. I recently turned in a counterfeit $100 bill to a Manhattan bank and was met with suspicion, rather than thanks.
What surprised me most about moving here is the general feeling of reverence many New Yorkers have for Canada. Canada, for many Americans, provides a model for which the U.S. should strive toward. In a country where trillions are being spent on a faceless war, yet most of its citizens are struggling with basic human rights like health care and education, Canada looks far more attractive than ever. I just think that Canadians should take more ownership of how lucky they are.
I get angry/frustrated/sad (depending on my mood) at the constant portrayal of the US as 100% reactionary Bush country, by people who ought to know better.
It's hard to see around that from up here at times. Bush has so much power in spite of being so incompetent. It often seems like he can get away with anything. It leaves everyone else wondering, "How come this idiot's still in charge? They must really love him there!"
Of course, the real problem isn't that everyone loves Dubya, but that the Presidential system is broken. Not just the Electoral College (a miserable idea in and of itself), but the fixed election dates, the lack of an effective opposition (Not just the spinelessness of the Dems, but the design of the system hobbles the opposition), limited options for removing a sitting President, corporate purchase of votes, etc.
And, of course, no-one's keen on fixing any of this because it can work to their advantage when they're in power.
Kyle et all, I do agree with the major position -- that Harper is to the left of the Democrats, and the rest of Canada is so far to the left they're off the map.
On the subject of the ethics bill, the deception comes in where they talk about the ethics package they are passing immediately, as their first bill. It isn't the ethics bill they promised, without the access to information stuff. And the fact is that the ATI stuff won't see the light of day for at least a year -- and will probably die when this government goes down.
A good write-up on this issue is here.
But as FlyGuyNYC and others have reminded us (or at least me), we're better off in a country where the debate is about what rights citizens have to things like health care and day care. I tend to disagree with Harper but I don't fear for my rights or the rights of other Canadians the way I would in the USA.
Harper has time to prove me wrong there, though...
If they don't fund child care spaces, they do damage.
But those child care spaces don't exist yet. What they're really doing is keeping things status quo instead of improving them.
If they pass this off as a strategy for helping people raise their families, they do damage.
The general public is smarter than that. No one will see this as a daycare plan.
FlyguyNYC, thank you for that excellent and articulate comment.
NYC is so special to me, and I will always miss it in some ways, but it's also a very self-centered place. People form communities - there are hundreds of them within the city - but the city at large is not a place of giving and sacrifice, that's definitely true.
It's hard to see around that from up here at times. Bush has so much power in spite of being so incompetent. It often seems like he can get away with anything. It leaves everyone else wondering, "How come this idiot's still in charge? They must really love him there!"
I guess that explains the phenom I'm referring to. People are assuming there's actually a democracy down there. Hmph.
Of course, the real problem isn't that everyone loves Dubya, but that the Presidential system is broken.
Exactly, and just as you list.
But those child care spaces don't exist yet. What they're really doing is keeping things status quo instead of improving them.
I thought the spaces were promised, however. And now those future, promised spaces will not materialize. Sounds like worsening to me.
The general public is smarter than that.
I don't want to insult Canadians, so I'll just I hope so. There seems to be so much distortion about what the Liberal day care plan actually was. When I hear/read people saying "I don't want the govt telling me how to raise my kids!", as if providing day care spaces for working families is some kind of communist plot, I'm not so sure.
I don't want to insult Canadians, so I'll just I hope so.
Don't worry, I'm quick to insult them myself. I'm the one who thinks there should be a merit test taken before you're permitted to vote!
When I hear/read people saying "I don't want the govt telling me how to raise my kids!", as if providing day care spaces for working families is some kind of communist plot, I'm not so sure.
As you well know, there's crazy folks everywhere. We have skinheads, Nazis and anarchists here too, but they don't represent the vast, vast majority.
As you well know, there's crazy folks everywhere. We have skinheads, Nazis and anarchists here too, but they don't represent the vast, vast majority.
Very true. Thank you for reminding me. After all, this post started out with my saying Harper's not going to ruin the country.
I just hope this $1200 taxable child-payment doesn't see the light of day. It's so meaningless.
This is a great discussion l-girl. I don't like a lot of what Harper stands for but I'm not too worried that we're going down the tubes.
As for the jabs at Alberta, why? :-)
Hey, we're all Canadians.
There are liberal thinkers and conservative thinkers all over the country. I'm a liberal B.C. person who has lived in Alberta for 19 years. I've found the people here to be friendly, sociable, literate and quite likeable.
In a country the size of ours you're always going to find local/regional issues. Don't let that weaken us.
There are liberal thinkers and conservative thinkers all over the country. I'm a liberal B.C. person who has lived in Alberta for 19 years. I've found the people here to be friendly, sociable, literate and quite likeable.
In a country the size of ours you're always going to find local/regional issues. Don't let that weaken us.
Thanks Kyahgirl, that's well said, and a good reminder for all of us. I'm sure the Alberta stereotypes are as silly as many Canadians' and European's outdated stereotypes about the American south.
As if all the bigots in the country live south of the Mason-Dixon. (If only!) Or as if everyone in Alabama lives in shacks and has a still in the backyard.
No really, they don't.
I just hope this $1200 taxable child-payment doesn't see the light of day. It's so meaningless.
I guess that's why it doesn't concern me much. It is so meaningless.
I guess that's why it doesn't concern me much. It is so meaningless.
Yabbut that's not what I meant (of course). It's meaningless to people who need child care, because it doesn't get them that.
In terms of social policy, it's quite meaningful, in that it doesn't provide anything, but purports to. It shouldn't be allowed to stand it for an actual child-care program, which the country needs.
It shouldn't be allowed to stand it for an actual child-care program, which the country needs.
I guess my argument is that people know it's not a child-care program and that it's just a minor tax cut. Yes, I disagree with positioning it as a child-care program but very few people are fooled.
I disagree with the Conservatives scrapping the Liberal's plan though as it was a good start in the right direction (though it certainly needed to be improved). Most people, however, won't see any change from the present... yes, they don't get what they were promised, but they're getting what they have now (which is completely different than having something taken away from them).
Check out my post at LWB for today and I think it will be abundently clear how I feel ...
Another thing about the $1200 baby bonus (let's not call it a tax cut or anything like that -- I sure as hell am not getting any benefit). As I understand it, the thing that's going in the budget is the $1200 -- not the anticipated dismantling of the provincial-federal agreements on day care. I believe that's not being touched until the next budget.
So this really is a beer and popcorn thing -- in that you might as well spend it on that as on anything else. I agree that it must not be understood to be a substitute for a national day care program, but then the real question is, what is it? How many parents' votes can be bought for $1200?
I expect it will soon be quite clear how little the $1200 does for anyone's child care. It's like a 10% off sale (since day care spaces are typically in the $1000/month range) -- sure, I'll take it, but it's not going to make a big difference either way.
By the way, does anyone else use the site www.howdtheyvote.ca? It hasn't started up so far for this parliament and it's killin' me -- I can't write my MP if I can't throw his own words in his face, now, can I? I know, there's Hansard, but that's a lot more work... anyhow, if you don't know about this site, start to use it -- it tracks every vote and every word uttered on the floor -- sorted by MP. Truly an awesome thing.
Check out my post at LWB for today and I think it will be abundently clear how I feel ...
WHOO-HOO!!! Nick and Mason are almost here! The next wave is beginning...!
As I understand it, the thing that's going in the budget is the $1200 -- not the anticipated dismantling of the provincial-federal agreements on day care. I believe that's not being touched until the next budget.
That's good to know. I didn't realize that.
How many parents' votes can be bought for $1200?
I expect it will soon be quite clear how little the $1200 does for anyone's child care.
I'd think so.
By the way, does anyone else use the site www.howdtheyvote.ca?
That site sounds amazing. Thanks.
Of course, the real problem isn't that everyone loves Dubya, but that the Presidential system is broken.
Exactly, and just as you list.
I've often told American friends that I like living in a (Constitutional) Monarchy (and former Colony). Think of the benefits Canada gets from that: our Head of State (and her family) is entertaining yet powerless, and we don't even have to keep them in the country! We stash 'em overseas and trot 'em out for special occasions, and they can't hurt anything.
Just think how much better off the US would be if you could keep Georgie in a small packing crate that only got opened up on Presidents' Day and the Fourth of July.
If there's one thing Canada excells at politically, it's bureaucracy. Bureaucratic inertia can be frustrating, but it does have a saving grace: it means that it takes longer to mess something up that it does under a powerful head-of-state who can change things by "executive order". Which, in turn, means that you have a better chance of spotting the problem before it gets set in stone.
Of course, it also means that course corrections are slow as well. But better to slowly drift it the right direction than jump headlong in the wrong one.
Just think how much better off the US would be if you could keep Georgie in a small packing crate that only got opened up on Presidents' Day and the Fourth of July.
Or we could just keep him in the crate -- with air holes, of course. Holes large enough for a feeding tube. I hear he likes those.
Or we could just keep him in the crate -- with air holes, of course. Holes large enough for a feeding tube. I hear he likes those.
I don't know that we'd need to bother with air holes. If US troops in Iraq can do without proper body armour, surely Georgie can do without air holes.
...surely Georgie can do without air holes.
Well, he is a manly man; he'll find a way to survive.
I don't know that we'd need to bother with air holes.
This is sounding better all the time.
Well, he is a manly man
And our apologies to men everywhere.
Post a Comment