133

The Liberal platform: simplicity itself


 

The most telling moment in Michael Ignatieff’s launch event for the full Liberal platform today in Ottawa came in an off-the-cuff comment he made after a video presentation on the party’s education policy.

Up on a big screen above a crowd arranged in a circle around Ignatieff, a series of Liberal candidates, all women, had been delivering brief presentations on the various key themes in the platform.

Wendy Yuan, who is trying to unseat NDP incumbent Don Davies in the hotly contested Vancouver-Kingsway riding, wrapped up her pre-taped pitch on education with a favourite Ignatieff slogan: “You get the grades, you get to go.”

The audience in the basement conference room of a downtown Ottawa hotel dutifully let loose with a longer than average burst of applause.  “That sounds pretty popular,” Ignatieff crowed. “You get the grades, you get to go. It’s like all these policies—they’re simple, they’re easy to understand, they address a real need of Canadian families.”

That’s something Ignatieff occasionally does: allude directly to the tactical formulation behind something he’s saying or doing. In this case, one might shrug off the “simple, easy to understand” description as merely stating the obvious.

Look at the five featured items in what the Liberals are calling their “Family Pack” platform: $1 billion a year toward grants for students going to college or university; $500 million a year for new child care spaces;  $1 billion in benefits for those who stay home to care for old or ill family members; $400 million to boost the Guaranteed Income Supplement; and, new today, $400 million for a tax credit for energy-saving home renovations.

These are indeed easy to grasp, and aimed at family matters. No doubt that’s good politics. Nobody needs reminding of how hard it was for Stéphane Dion to make his carbon tax plan seem comprehensible and relevant. Or how Paul Martin’s big themes, demographic change and the rise of Asian economic competitors, sounded remote from the day-to-day.

Ignatieff’s more campaign-friendly, family-centric messaging has been in development for about a year, and started to take shape clearly last fall, when he unveiled his family caregivers plan. His sure-footed start to this campaign owes everything to that patient preparation.

Yet there was a moment late in today’s show, after Ignatieff had touted his platform’s simplicity, when I wondered if it’s enough. He took a question submitted online by a 19-year-old from Montréal, who pleaded for a policy on global warming, noting that his generation would have to live with climate change.

All Ignatieff had to point to by way of an answer was that reno tax credit and a Liberal promise to move more quickly to end a oil-sands development tax break, which the Conservatives are winding down anyway by 2015, and push the money saved in environmentally desirable directions.

It wasn’t terribly convincing. But a fuller answer—one that, say, explained how he hopes to make good on his party’s pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050—couldn’t possibly have met his test of being easy to understand and addressed at family preoccupations.

Made me wonder what Dion would have said.

 


 

The Liberal platform: simplicity itself

    • Emily,
      You should read the contents. In it you will find that an emission cap and trade system along with big big reductions targets of GHG are included. Articles in a national newspaper say the cost of these targets is over $800 billion which the federal government would recieve. This is one large tax grab from the West to pay for social programs and the proverbial —- is going to hit the fan.

      • Since you didn't mention the "national newspaper" I'll assume it was the Harper Herald from Alberta. Surprise , Surprise.

      • I did read it….now stop with the silly screaming over a 'newspaper' interpretation

        • Emily
          Read what John said at the end of this article. I believe he was inferring something.
          Waterloo. Try G&M.

          • Wake me when you can speak clearly….I'm not big on infering, hints, signalling, or reading between the lines.

          • Emily,
            I tried to warn you that there is a big bad policy in this red book and it will adversely impact the Liberals. The Liberals will now be on the defensive for the remainder of the election and no matter what they say The Green Shaft is back.
            Back to the hockey game. Good night :)

          • You have a vivid imagination, but no basis for it….g'night.

  1. I don't have time for all this. I am busy trying to figure out all the accounting the CPC changes to the capital cost allowance system require! :)

  2. I don't have time for all this. I am busy trying to figure out all the accounting the CPC changes to the capital cost allowance system require! :)

  3. I wish we had a popular political culture in which that 19-year-old's question could be properly discussed, but we've collectively shown that we don't.

    I don't know if Ignatieff, should he be elected, would actually be able to carry through on half of what he's got on offer with this "family pack". But I do know that given what I've seen about the level of debate we usually have as a country — meaning outside of forums like this one — is that complex content is seldom a friend to a campaign.

    So if you want to push a business agenda, you talk about creating jobs and trickle-down wealth, not tax policy and banking deregulation. If you want to push an environmental agenda, you talk about home improvement credits, not the carbon tax. And if you want to push an educational agenda, you talk about grants and accessibility, not post-secondary funding and the brain-drain. You keep it in the home.

    I'm not crazy about that, but with a few exceptions that mostly seems to be how it is nowadays.

  4. I wish we had a popular political culture in which that 19-year-old's question could be properly discussed, but we've collectively shown that we don't.

    I don't know if Ignatieff, should he be elected, would actually be able to carry through on half of what he's got on offer with this "family pack". But I do know that given what I've seen about the level of debate we usually have as a country — meaning outside of forums like this one — is that complex content is seldom a friend to a campaign.

    So if you want to push a business agenda, you talk about creating jobs and trickle-down wealth, not tax policy and banking deregulation. If you want to push an environmental agenda, you talk about home improvement credits, not the carbon tax. And if you want to push an educational agenda, you talk about grants and accessibility, not post-secondary funding and the brain-drain. You keep it in the home.

    I'm not crazy about that, but with a few exceptions that mostly seems to be how it is nowadays.

    • too long, didn't read.

      • i-see-what-you-did-there.jpg

    • I agree. We've all become a nation of selfish navel-gazers. Everything boils down to "what's in it for me?" not "What's in the best interest of this nation / the world?"

  5. "I wondered if it's enough"

    Do you mean whether it is enough to win an election or whether it is enough for a responsible government to aspire to?

    Not that those two are not intimately connected. A good politician has to recognize where people are starting from, where the country should aim to get to, and has to identify a possible route to get there that might be achievable.

  6. "I wondered if it's enough"

    Do you mean whether it is enough to win an election or whether it is enough for a responsible government to aspire to?

    Not that those two are not intimately connected. A good politician has to recognize where people are starting from, where the country should aim to get to, and has to identify a possible route to get there that might be achievable.

  7. too long, didn't read.

  8. Conservatives have had a virtual monopoly on the quick pitch – policies that could be summed up without pausing to catch your breath.

    Professor Dion didn't get why this was necessary and spent an entire campaign trying to lecture the public on a complicated policy, related to a single issue, that could be dismissed with two words ('tax hike').

    Professor Ignatieff, doesn't seem to want to fall into that trap.

  9. Conservatives have had a virtual monopoly on the quick pitch – policies that could be summed up without pausing to catch your breath.

    Professor Dion didn't get why this was necessary and spent an entire campaign trying to lecture the public on a complicated policy, related to a single issue, that could be dismissed with two words ('tax hike').

    Professor Ignatieff, doesn't seem to want to fall into that trap.

    • Good synopsis. Professor Dion probably still believes, "Good policy is good politics." Gotta love a guy like that.

      • Unfortunately when Proffessor Dion said it it sounded to English-speaking Canadians like, "guud poleeteecs eez guud poleecee."

        Now we're all paying the price.

      • If only she'd run 18 years later, when Kim Campbell remarked 'elections are no time to discuss serious issues' she probably wouldn't have been pilloried as she was.

        At best she would have been lauded for her political savvy, at worst nobody would have batted an eyelash at such an obvious statement.

        • Her mistake was being too candid. She was entirely correct, but it offends our sensibilities that pablum about families and kitchen tables is all we're capable of talking about during elections.

  10. Good synopsis. Professor Dion probably still believes, "Good policy is good politics." Gotta love a guy like that.

  11. Unfortunately when Proffessor Dion said it it sounded to English-speaking Canadians like, "guud poleeteecs eez guud poleecee."

    Now we're all paying the price.

  12. You want this man running your country??
    I find the following rather interesting.

    I watched the Provincial Budget being read by Dwight Duncan Finance Minister (Liberal) MPP yesterday.
    I was astounded at what he was saying……the exact same words that have been coming out of Stephen Harpers mouth…..
    —–Invest In Industry/creats jobs
    —–Keep the taxes to corporations down,
    —–The Provincial Debt will be paid off in 2017
    —–and several other things.

    Almost the exact same things that Mr. Harper has been saying with regards to our Federal Budget,
    If you get a chance, check out the CPAC statiion to see if you can see a replay of the Provincial Budget being read.
    What else I find very interesting….Iggy is saying the exact opposite to what these two " professional" men are saying.

  13. You want this man running your country??
    I find the following rather interesting.

    I watched the Provincial Budget being read by Dwight Duncan Finance Minister (Liberal) MPP yesterday.
    I was astounded at what he was saying……the exact same words that have been coming out of Stephen Harpers mouth…..
    —–Invest In Industry/creats jobs
    —–Keep the taxes to corporations down,
    —–The Provincial Debt will be paid off in 2017
    —–and several other things.

    Almost the exact same things that Mr. Harper has been saying with regards to our Federal Budget,
    If you get a chance, check out the CPAC statiion to see if you can see a replay of the Provincial Budget being read.
    What else I find very interesting….Iggy is saying the exact opposite to what these two " professional" men are saying.

    • Apart from reminding me why I'm not voting Liberal in the provincial election, did you have a point?

      McGuinty has become Harper Lite for some reason that I don't understand. A tax credit bonanza (we've had to seriously modify our client letters to get them to fit on one page with all the tax credits to mention), coupled with flyers in the mail to tout the tax credit bonanza.

      I'm a Liberal but I'm not a blind partisan. I don't like tax credits for every little thing when Harper does them, and I don't like them when McGuinty does them, either. I wish people understood that buying your vote with your own money is not something to get excited about.

      • I think this was the winner:
        "—–and several other things. "

      • Yeah I know. I read the Northern Ontario Growth plan the other day and the words "cost effective" made their way into every paragraphs about the promises they backed out on. Real good promises that were getting tied with the immense projected electricity cost hike.

        There are rumors about the Green Energy Act becoming a political monster, which is a shame because it's a model acclaimed internationally. Our NDP MP went on the prowl for failed micro-fit applications, probably to call out the Liberals on suddenly becoming shy. For instance, the cancelation of the North-South transmission lines upgrade effective killed any chance of Green Energy Act becoming feasible by cutting off the demand(south) from the supply(north).

        Politics in Ontario are a lot more polarised so the only way to vote center is to vote Liberals, but voting NDP to save the Green Energy Act might be a necesary evil this fall.

    • I find it interesting that the Ontario Conservatives are arguing against that Dwight Duncan budget for the same reasons you have listed.
      Iggy has already answered why there is a difference. Harper wouldn't take the question.

  14. Iggy was “APPOINTED” to the positiion he occupies & has no experience.

    Iggy tried to “bring our Government down” a year ago & after announcing that he was going to, he discovered he couldn't because he “had no backup plan” for Canada to exist on.

  15. Something else that came to my mind.
    Iggy is constantly knocking Mr. Harper down talking about all the spending he has been doing.
    What he hasn't been telling us is…..
    We have at least 4 separate parties, Conservatives, Liberal, NDP, and Bloc. These people all VOTE on the bills that allow Mr. Harper to spend the money. The Liberals have voted on many of the items Iggy is screaming about, but he is not telling you that his party voted for much of the spending that took place.

    Another thing Iggy isn't telling you…..his party (LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA) was involved in the largest theft that took place in Canada. They STOLE $ 355,000,000.00 million dollars from the Canadian tax payer, the last time they were the governing Party (just before Mr. Harper). Only $ 1000,000.00 million dollars of that THEFT which was the "Sponsorship Scandal" that they took part in,….. has been returned.

    How can his party run for the highest position in Canada when they were involved in THEFT and still owe the Canadian Tax payer $ 140,000,000.00 million dollars?????
    Is this the man and the party we want running our Country????

  16. Iggy was “APPOINTED” to the positiion he occupies & has no experience.

    Iggy tried to “bring our Government down” a year ago & after announcing that he was going to, he discovered he couldn't because he “had no backup plan” for Canada to exist on.

    • Iggy "knows how to use quotation marks"

  17. Something else that came to my mind.
    Iggy is constantly knocking Mr. Harper down talking about all the spending he has been doing.
    What he hasn't been telling us is…..
    We have at least 4 separate parties, Conservatives, Liberal, NDP, and Bloc. These people all VOTE on the bills that allow Mr. Harper to spend the money. The Liberals have voted on many of the items Iggy is screaming about, but he is not telling you that his party voted for much of the spending that took place.

    Another thing Iggy isn't telling you…..his party (LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA) was involved in the largest theft that took place in Canada. They STOLE $ 355,000,000.00 million dollars from the Canadian tax payer, the last time they were the governing Party (just before Mr. Harper). Only $ 1000,000.00 million dollars of that THEFT which was the "Sponsorship Scandal" that they took part in,….. has been returned.

    How can his party run for the highest position in Canada when they were involved in THEFT and still owe the Canadian Tax payer $ 140,000,000.00 million dollars?????
    Is this the man and the party we want running our Country????

    • Speaking for myself, yes this is the man we want running the country.

    • "something else came to mind"? that's quite a mind.

      as someone else said, yes, speaking for myself, this is the man I want running our country.

    • I agree with Patchouli (love the new name!) and Catherine.

      But I did just want to mention that at least Ignatieff is telling us something–talking to us, if you will. We can't get even that from Harper.

    • Yeah……I think I'll vote for the guy who isn't afraid of questions!

  18. Speaking for myself, yes this is the man we want running the country.

  19. "something else came to mind"? that's quite a mind.

    as someone else said, yes, speaking for myself, this is the man I want running our country.

  20. Apart from reminding me why I'm not voting Liberal in the provincial election, did you have a point?

    McGuinty has become Harper Lite for some reason that I don't understand. A tax credit bonanza (we've had to seriously modify our client letters to get them to fit on one page with all the tax credits to mention), coupled with flyers in the mail to tout the tax credit bonanza.

    I'm a Liberal but I'm not a blind partisan. I don't like tax credits for every little thing when Harper does them, and I don't like them when McGuinty does them, either. I wish people understood that buying your vote with your own money is not something to get excited about.

  21. I agree with Patchouli (love the new name!) and Catherine.

    But I did just want to mention that at least Ignatieff is telling us something–talking to us, if you will. We can't get even that from Harper.

  22. i-see-what-you-did-there.jpg

  23. If only she'd run 18 years later, when Kim Campbell remarked 'elections are no time to discuss serious issues' she probably wouldn't have been pilloried as she was.

    At best she would have been lauded for her political savvy, at worst nobody would have batted an eyelash at such an obvious statement.

  24. I think this was the winner:
    "—–and several other things. "

  25. Iggy "knows how to use quotation marks"

  26. Yeah I know. I read the Northern Ontario Growth plan the other day and the words "cost effective" made their way into every paragraphs about the promises they backed out on. Real good promises that were getting tied with the immense projected electricity cost hike.

    There are rumors about the Green Energy Act becoming a political monster, which is a shame because it's a model acclaimed internationally. Our NDP MP went on the prowl for failed micro-fit applications, probably to call out the Liberals on suddenly becoming shy. For instance, the cancelation of the North-South transmission lines upgrade effective killed any chance of Green Energy Act becoming feasible by cutting off the demand(south) from the supply(north).

    Politics in Ontario are a lot more polarised so the only way to vote center is to vote Liberals, but voting NDP to save the Green Energy Act might be a necesary evil this fall.

  27. Emily,
    You should read the contents. In it you will find that an emission cap and trade system along with big big reductions targets of GHG are included. Articles in a national newspaper say the cost of these targets is over $800 billion which the federal government would recieve. This is one large tax grab from the West to pay for social programs and the proverbial —- is going to hit the fan.

  28. Since you didn't mention the "national newspaper" I'll assume it was the Harper Herald from Alberta. Surprise , Surprise.

  29. So, how much do the kids not going to college or university get? Or do they just get the privilege of entering the work force directly (somehow) to pay for the ones who will have high enough lifetime earnings to more than cover the cost of a paltry $4000?

  30. So, how much do the kids not going to college or university get? Or do they just get the privilege of entering the work force directly (somehow) to pay for the ones who will have high enough lifetime earnings to more than cover the cost of a paltry $4000?

    • Given the nature of today's (and tomorrow's economy) becoming more and more knowledge-based, if someone is leaving school directly into the workforce, I don't think they have to worry about earning an income high enough to pay any meaningful amount of income tax in the first place.

      • I live in Halifax (a university town) I know more than my fair share of dishwashers and wait staff that are earning minimum wage with degrees and upwards of $30, 000 in debt. Canada needs a healthy business environment that can provide these grads with jobs not regressive taxation and a surplus labour force.

        • And how are they better off without a degree? Aside from not being in debt $30,000, they are still earning minimum wage, and have next-to-no prospects of ever doing better.

    • Furthermore, given a high-school graduate's likely low income, I would presume they are likely to disproportionately benefit from existing programs such as EI, social assistance, public housing assistance… yeah, over a life time, the person getting $4000 and a university degree will likely pay much more in tax that is transferred to the high-school graduate than the other way around.

      But nice try.

      • If he'll pay much more in tax, he must first earn much more in income, which is my point about high lifetime earnings. Even with the "burden" of student loans, most university-bound kids are on a track to a life of relative privilege. Why does the privilege need to be subsidized for all?

        • It's the initial cost of the buy-in.

          Kind of like the difference between setting the minimum down on a house purchase at 5% rather than 10%. More people can step up & buy the house at 5%. At 10%, you exclude people who could afford the monthly payment IF they could just get into the house to start with – but whose rent etc eats up their earnings to such a degree that it will take forever to save up that extra dough.

          as the old saw goes, "it takes money to make money"

  31. I find it interesting that the Ontario Conservatives are arguing against that Dwight Duncan budget for the same reasons you have listed.
    Iggy has already answered why there is a difference. Harper wouldn't take the question.

  32. I did read it….now stop with the silly screaming over a 'newspaper' interpretation

  33. Emily
    Read what John said at the end of this article. I believe he was inferring something.
    Waterloo. Try G&M.

  34. Results = BREAK THE BACKS OF CANADIANS WITH HIGHER TAXES!!

  35. Results = BREAK THE BACKS OF CANADIANS WITH HIGHER TAXES!!

    • Did Harper come up with that SHOUTING point for you? And when did you change your handle from 'One national goverment, two governments or 10 governments, I don't care'?

  36. Wake me when you can speak clearly….I'm not big on infering, hints, signalling, or reading between the lines.

  37. Given the nature of today's (and tomorrow's economy) becoming more and more knowledge-based, if someone is leaving school directly into the workforce, I don't think they have to worry about earning an income high enough to pay any meaningful amount of income tax in the first place.

  38. Furthermore, given a high-school graduate's likely low income, I would presume they are likely to disproportionately benefit from existing programs such as EI, social assistance, public housing assistance… yeah, over a life time, the person getting $4000 and a university degree will likely pay much more in tax that is transferred to the high-school graduate than the other way around.

    But nice try.

  39. To pursue a BA in Halifax each year of university costs approx. $8000 ($32, 000 total for the BA). Ignatiff's policy would pay for 1/8 of a BA. However, the student would (over a four year degree) trade access to $4000 in debt (at 0% interest while in university) and $2232 in tax breaks for $4000 in grants. When you look at the level of debt incurred I'd prefer to have the extra $2232 so that I can avoid use of my student line of credit (w/ interest at market rate). Also once repayments of Canada Student Loans begins the interest is tax deductable.

    Iggy's plan is costly and unnecessary; especially as it comes at the expense of the businesses that will be employing grads.

  40. To pursue a BA in Halifax each year of university costs approx. $8000 ($32, 000 total for the BA). Ignatiff's policy would pay for 1/8 of a BA. However, the student would (over a four year degree) trade access to $4000 in debt (at 0% interest while in university) and $2232 in tax breaks for $4000 in grants. When you look at the level of debt incurred I'd prefer to have the extra $2232 so that I can avoid use of my student line of credit (w/ interest at market rate). Also once repayments of Canada Student Loans begins the interest is tax deductable.

    Iggy's plan is costly and unnecessary; especially as it comes at the expense of the businesses that will be employing grads.

    • I don't know if your numbers are correct and I won't argue them, but your argument misses one crucial point – Ignatieff's plan promises money up front, at the beginning of the school year. Tax breaks only enter your pocket upwards of a year after incurring the initial expense, not prior to incurring it. And debt is debt – any recipient will take $4000 in grants over $4000 in debt any day.

      So yes, while the proposed plan would cancel tax breaks, it basically trades money paid well after the fact for money paid up front. That can be a critical difference for many in-need students.

      • My numbers are correct. Canada Student Loans already provide access to post-secondary education for all Canadians. The Grits plan would give a $1000 grant at the beginning of every year of a four year degree to an RESP acount that you already have to have put a certain amount of money into to access (you need your own money up front to get Iggy's).

        Grants are counted as income so it is subtracted from what you'd have received as a student loan. Students get everything they pay in taxes back so in April (when students need money the most as their student loans run out) they currently get a tax rebate for at least $558. For alot of people that is a months rent when they'll have to be looking for a summer job.

        When you are looking at upwards of $32, 000 in debt having real money in your pocket at the end of each year instead of relying on a line of credit at market interest rates is alot better than getting the government to reduce1/8 of a 0% interest student loan.

        This Education Passport is an expensive and unncessary program that will only expand an already unwieldy bureaucracy.

        • But by the proposal, you are trading $558 in April for $1000 in September – 8 months earlier.

          "… an RESP acount that you already have to have put a certain amount of money into to access"

          From the Liberal platform, you're statement is simply wrong:

          "All parents will have to do is open a Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP). They won't have to make any contribution of their own to receive the Learning Passport."

          • Yes. It costs money to open an RESP. You have to pay sales fees and deposit a certain amount of money into it. Some RESPs don't even pay out until the student has started their second year.

            You don't see the $1000 it just gets deducted of the university tuition. You actually get to hold the $558 in your hands and use as you see fit.

          • "Yes. It costs money to open an RESP. You have to pay sales fees and deposit a certain amount of money into it."

            Well, if that's the case, I suggest you investigate your current banking situation.
            http://www.rbcroyalbank.com/products/resp/benefit

            "No Fees

            There is no charge to start an RESP with RBC Royal Bank and no annual administration fees. "

          • RESP.
            Pay first. Produce reciepts to obtain money from an RESP account

          • Exactly you need to have you own money up front to get reimbursed.

        • From my understanding, this $4,000 is not supposed to impact any existing eligibility.If you were eligible without the $4,00 you are equally eligible once you receive it.

          Methinks you have either misread the policy or are deliberately trying to mislead.

  41. I live in Halifax (a university town) I know more than my fair share of dishwashers and wait staff that are earning minimum wage with degrees and upwards of $30, 000 in debt. Canada needs a healthy business environment that can provide these grads with jobs not regressive taxation and a surplus labour force.

  42. I don't know if your numbers are correct and I won't argue them, but your argument misses one crucial point – Ignatieff's plan promises money up front, at the beginning of the school year. Tax breaks only enter your pocket upwards of a year after incurring the initial expense, not prior to incurring it. And debt is debt – any recipient will take $4000 in grants over $4000 in debt any day.

    So yes, while the proposed plan would cancel tax breaks, it basically trades money paid well after the fact for money paid up front. That can be a critical difference for many in-need students.

  43. Emily,
    I tried to warn you that there is a big bad policy in this red book and it will adversely impact the Liberals. The Liberals will now be on the defensive for the remainder of the election and no matter what they say The Green Shaft is back.
    Back to the hockey game. Good night :)

  44. You have a vivid imagination, but no basis for it….g'night.

  45. And how are they better off without a degree? Aside from not being in debt $30,000, they are still earning minimum wage, and have next-to-no prospects of ever doing better.

  46. My numbers are correct. Canada Student Loans already provide access to post-secondary education for all Canadians. The Grits plan would give a $1000 grant at the beginning of every year of a four year degree to an RESP acount that you already have to have put a certain amount of money into to access (you need your own money up front to get Iggy's).

    Grants are counted as income so it is subtracted from what you'd have received as a student loan. Students get everything they pay in taxes back so in April (when students need money the most as their student loans run out) they currently get a tax rebate for at least $558. For alot of people that is a months rent when they'll have to be looking for a summer job.

    When you are looking at upwards of $32, 000 in debt having real money in your pocket at the end of each year instead of relying on a line of credit at market interest rates is alot better than getting the government to reduce1/8 of a 0% interest student loan.

    This Education Passport is an expensive and unncessary program that will only expand an already unwieldy bureaucracy.

  47. Her mistake was being too candid. She was entirely correct, but it offends our sensibilities that pablum about families and kitchen tables is all we're capable of talking about during elections.

  48. But by the proposal, you are trading $558 in April for $1000 in September – 8 months earlier.

    "… an RESP acount that you already have to have put a certain amount of money into to access"

    From the Liberal platform, you're statement is simply wrong:

    "All parents will have to do is open a Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP). They won't have to make any contribution of their own to receive the Learning Passport."

  49. I know alot of 'uneducated' individuals who are working at Bowaters and Michelin who are earning $20+ per/hr. I also know quite a number of tradesmen and chefs who earned their $20+ per/hr wages with the four years experience spent in the workforce instead of in the classroom.

    These individuals prospects look a lot brighter than the university grads who will likely need to move across the country if they want anything better than a job at a call-centre or waiting tables.

  50. I find it funny that in your crying foul of educational subsidies, you cite an industry that directly receives a ridiculous amount of assistance from the government (AbitibiBowater), and a company that is dependent on a healthy auto sector, which also receives a ridiculous amount of assistance from the government (Michelin).

    As far as tradesmen, I am presuming you weren't aware that RESP's can be used for trade schools, and as such can assist more people to get involved in the trades, which I agree pay great wages.
    http://www.canlearn.ca/eng/saving/resp/program.sh

  51. I find it funny that in your crying foul of educational subsidies, you cite an industry that directly receives a ridiculous amount of assistance from the government (AbitibiBowater), and a company that is dependent on a healthy auto sector, which also receives a ridiculous amount of assistance from the government (Michelin).

    As far as tradesmen, I am presuming you weren't aware that RESP's can be used for trade schools, and as such can assist more people to get involved in the trades, which I agree pay great wages.
    http://www.canlearn.ca/eng/saving/resp/program.sh

    • Exactly. The role of government is to produce workplaces not workers. If you focus on workers to the detriment of industry you don't produce workers you produce the unemployed and underemployed.

      You assumptions are wrong. I am perfectly aware of how RESPs work. You need to read further than Grit policy statements. Refer to my other post.

      • Hmmm…. the following saying comes to mind:

        "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime."

        Subsidies to business are fleeting. They only help as long as the money keeps coming. Stop the subsidies, affected industries can crumble.

        An education lasts a lifetime.

        • International capital is flexible. A government opposed to industry ensures perputual unemployment and underemployment.

      • "The role of government is to produce workplaces"

        I thought you are a CPC supporter? This smacks soundly of socialism / communism – create a workplace to produce goods that no one needs and pay the plant to stay open.

        Shouldn't you be backing Jack?

  52. Yes. It costs money to open an RESP. You have to pay sales fees and deposit a certain amount of money into it. Some RESPs don't even pay out until the student has started their second year.

    You don't see the $1000 it just gets deducted of the university tuition. You actually get to hold the $558 in your hands and use as you see fit.

  53. "Yes. It costs money to open an RESP. You have to pay sales fees and deposit a certain amount of money into it."

    Well, if that's the case, I suggest you investigate your current banking situation.
    http://www.rbcroyalbank.com/products/resp/benefit

    "No Fees

    There is no charge to start an RESP with RBC Royal Bank and no annual administration fees. "

  54. Exactly. The role of government is to produce workplaces not workers. If you focus on workers to the detriment of industry you don't produce workers you produce the unemployed and underemployed.

    You assumptions are wrong. I am perfectly aware of how RESPs work. You need to read further than Grit policy statements. Refer to my other post.

  55. RESP.
    Pay first. Produce reciepts to obtain money from an RESP account

  56. I'm a little unclear about the "simplicity" aspect of the Liberal platform.

    Is an economy destroying cap on emissions, buried deeply within the platform, simple?

    I guess it depends on how you look at it. It seems the implications on a hard cap on every man, woman and child, would be rather complex.

    Perhaps its only complex if you choose to scrutinize what's in it. If you choose to sit back, clap your hands and cheerlead…whatever the implications, then yes, yes it is "simple" isn't it?

  57. I'm a little unclear about the "simplicity" aspect of the Liberal platform.

    Is an economy destroying cap on emissions, buried deeply within the platform, simple?

    I guess it depends on how you look at it. It seems the implications on a hard cap on every man, woman and child, would be rather complex.

    Perhaps its only complex if you choose to scrutinize what's in it. If you choose to sit back, clap your hands and cheerlead…whatever the implications, then yes, yes it is "simple" isn't it?

    • "Perhaps its only complex if you choose to scrutinize what's in it. If you choose to sit back, clap your hands and cheerlead…whatever the implications, then yes, yes it is "simple" isn't it? "

      Well put. My sentiments exactly.

    • Well, why not? Appealing to the brain-dead has been working just fine for the CPC…

  58. Hmmm…. the following saying comes to mind:

    "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime."

    Subsidies to business are fleeting. They only help as long as the money keeps coming. Stop the subsidies, affected industries can crumble.

    An education lasts a lifetime.

  59. Exactly you need to have you own money up front to get reimbursed.

  60. International capital is flexible. A government opposed to industry ensures perputual unemployment and underemployment.

  61. "Perhaps its only complex if you choose to scrutinize what's in it. If you choose to sit back, clap your hands and cheerlead…whatever the implications, then yes, yes it is "simple" isn't it? "

    Well put. My sentiments exactly.

  62. Michael Ignatieff is a bigger spender than P.E.T. We really are going backwards fast.

    Are Canaidan voters be this dumb to believe this stuff?

  63. Michael Ignatieff is a bigger spender than P.E.T. We really are going backwards fast.

    Are Canaidan voters be this dumb to believe this stuff?

    • But don't you know what the name of the Prime Minister with the largest ever annual deficit is? GWB called him Steve, John Howard called him 'a dingo plagarist, but an agreeable sort', and you'll never call him late for supper…

    • "is a bigger spender"? Getting a bit ahead of yourself, aren't you? Though I hope he is given the chance to show his stuff…

  64. Did Harper come up with that SHOUTING point for you? And when did you change your handle from 'One national goverment, two governments or 10 governments, I don't care'?

  65. But don't you know what the name of the Prime Minister with the largest ever annual deficit is? GWB called him Steve, John Howard called him 'a dingo plagarist, but an agreeable sort', and you'll never call him late for supper…

  66. If he'll pay much more in tax, he must first earn much more in income, which is my point about high lifetime earnings. Even with the "burden" of student loans, most university-bound kids are on a track to a life of relative privilege. Why does the privilege need to be subsidized for all?

  67. Yeah……I think I'll vote for the guy who isn't afraid of questions!

  68. The $350 million sponsorship scandal wasn't even the biggest scam of all time. Let's not forget the Ontario Liberals and their $1 BILLION e-Health scandal, of which there is absolutely nothing to show for. This is graft and corruption at its worst. When you pay $1 billion dollars for something, you should at very least have something to show for it. In China, they hang corrupt officials. In Ontario, we re-elect them.

  69. I agree. We've all become a nation of selfish navel-gazers. Everything boils down to "what's in it for me?" not "What's in the best interest of this nation / the world?"

  70. "The role of government is to produce workplaces"

    I thought you are a CPC supporter? This smacks soundly of socialism / communism – create a workplace to produce goods that no one needs and pay the plant to stay open.

    Shouldn't you be backing Jack?

  71. You can be quite supportive of industry without taxing others to find money to keep the companies afloat. That IS what you are proposing here.

  72. It's the initial cost of the buy-in.

    Kind of like the difference between setting the minimum down on a house purchase at 5% rather than 10%. More people can step up & buy the house at 5%. At 10%, you exclude people who could afford the monthly payment IF they could just get into the house to start with – but whose rent etc eats up their earnings to such a degree that it will take forever to save up that extra dough.

    as the old saw goes, "it takes money to make money"

  73. From my understanding, this $4,000 is not supposed to impact any existing eligibility.If you were eligible without the $4,00 you are equally eligible once you receive it.

    Methinks you have either misread the policy or are deliberately trying to mislead.

  74. Well, why not? Appealing to the brain-dead has been working just fine for the CPC…

  75. "is a bigger spender"? Getting a bit ahead of yourself, aren't you? Though I hope he is given the chance to show his stuff…

  76. It's called luring highly mobile global capital and it's what propels growth. Alot better than Iggy's plan to waste money on an arena in Quebec City.

  77. Grants are considered income. Income is subtracted from what you'd receive as a Canada Student Loan. I should know I've applied 10 times. Contact Canada Student Loans if you want to learn more.

    You're being misled by Iggy.

  78. No; you are either misinformed or deliberately trying to mislead readers on this site. I saw Ignatieff questioned on this and he explicitly said the program would be drafted such that it would in no way impact available loans/grants; it is IN ADDITION to these. From the applicable section on the Liberal site:

    Q: How does the Learning Passport operate alongside existing federal education programs?

    A: By using the RESP system, the Learning Passport will easily work alongside other federal education programs. The Learning Passport will be provided in addition to the Tuition Tax Credit, the Canada Student Loans Program and the Canada Student Grants Program.

    Go here to read more: http://www.liberal.ca/issues/newsroom/news-releas

  79. No; you are either misinformed or deliberately trying to mislead readers on this site. I saw Ignatieff questioned on this and he explicitly said the program would be drafted such that it would in no way impact available loans/grants; it is IN ADDITION to these. From the applicable section on the Liberal site:

    Q: How does the Learning Passport operate alongside existing federal education programs?

    A: By using the RESP system, the Learning Passport will easily work alongside other federal education programs. The Learning Passport will be provided in addition to the Tuition Tax Credit, the Canada Student Loans Program and the Canada Student Grants Program.

    Go here to read more: http://www.liberal.ca/issues/newsroom/news-releas

    • Not sure how, but I got logged out. Back again… sorry for the inadvertant old screen name.

    • You can believe Iggy's BS if you want but they're deliberately misleading you about how RESPs function with student loans. RESPs are INVESTMENTS. RESPs and grants are considered INCOME. Thats why RESPs are TAXED when you withdraw funds. Your income is what determines your NEED when you apply for a student loan. Therefore if you have a higher income you get LESS from student loans. Call your bank and ask them they'll tell you the same thing.

      You can smell the BS on the Liberal website. For example:

      "The Learning Passport will be provided through the Registered Education Savings Program (RESP) as a new, non-taxable, non-repayable, up-front benefit".

      Yes, RESPs aren't taxed unlike other investments, that is unless until you withdraw funds. The Liberals tell half-truths, omitting details such as this in an intentional attempt to hoodwink Canadians.
      http://www.canlearn.ca/eng/saving/resp/faq.shtml#

  80. Not sure how, but I got logged out. Back again… sorry for the inadvertant old screen name.

  81. You can believe Iggy's BS if you want but they're deliberately misleading you about how RESPs function with student loans. RESPs are INVESTMENTS. RESPs and grants are considered INCOME. Thats why RESPs are TAXED when you withdraw funds. Your income is what determines your NEED when you apply for a student loan. Therefore if you have a higher income you get LESS from student loans. Call your bank and ask them they'll tell you the same thing.

    You can smell the BS on the Liberal website. For example:

    "The Learning Passport will be provided through the Registered Education Savings Program (RESP) as a new, non-taxable, non-repayable, up-front benefit".

    Yes, RESPs aren't taxed unlike other investments, that is unless until you withdraw funds. The Liberals tell half-truths, omitting details such as this in an intentional attempt to hoodwink Canadians.
    http://www.canlearn.ca/eng/saving/resp/faq.shtml#

Sign in to comment.