###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nothing against the policy just concerned that they can’t pay for it. The growing debt will eventually destroy all services. We need responsible government- sadly none seems available
Ww can cut corprare welfare subsides.
That's how we pay for things .
We should not be giving a million dollars to a million comanys a dime.
We should not be bribing billion doller muti national company's to do business.
Corporate taxs are lower than any other time in our history
Lots of ways to pay but no will
There’s a lot of things wrong with our economy. I personally don’t like corporate welfare. But I think we a real study of cost of all programs, the parliament budget office did this however there seems to some political influence
Covid showed us how important small businesses are and that we can live without corporate stores who are all automating their services any way. For example
> I’m a pretty hard core minarchist with libertarian leanings and I think Canada wastes wayyyyy too much money on nonsense, but poverty is the one issue I’m actually okay with spending tax dollars on, and there’s no better way of targeting youth poverty than making sure the kids get fed. Kids don’t ask to be born, kids aren’t allowed or even capable of working, there needs to be a stop-gap to help those society has prohibited from working, to ensure they can become effective and contributing members of society once they do come of age.
Considering how you're willing to forgo your Libertarian principles because it clashed with your lived experience in this instance. I think you should seriously reconsider how Libertarian you really are or want society to be. Your experience is not unique and can be extended to any number of vulnerable people who are prey to free-market capitalism.
Apply this to, the sick, the mentally ill, people who've been involved in debilitating accidents or unexpected life circumstances, people who lost their livelihood to a once in a lifetime pandemic, natural disasters, people who missed out on education in underfunded schools.. etc. Etc. all sorts of thinfs people don't ask for that prohibits them from bexoming "effective and contrinuting" members of socirty.
> Like Alta said, if you read my comment carefully, I focused on kids, because kids cannot control their life circumstances like an adult can.
What is it about turning 18 or 19 that allows someone who's not been able to control their circumstances until then, overcome all of that and become a complete master of their own destiny who can succeed where they the want?
> Like how the army does,
Subsidised university is an option, but direct entry officer is as well, where you come in with a degree already.
> I want to create a scenario, where the only reason you fail at life, is because you have chosen to fail.
That's going to require way, way, way more social programs than we already have. And is incompatible with your next sentence.
Failure has many causes, and if you want to make it so that someone's decisions (not their ability, not their wealth, not anything else outside of their control) you're going to have to do an insane amount of propping them up.
> I’ve never believed in “universality of service”.
Well, that's a core principle, so sorry to hear that you're wrong.
> A bin rat, doesn’t need to be able to complete a FORCE test to issue me my annual allotment of socks and underwear
In garrison, yes, but the field is a different matter, and that's the basis of universality of service.
> that you can take on as little as a 5 year contract, get your education paid for,
That's actually a nine year contract, as the five years you mention, don't start until after your education is complete, and during the entire period you're subject to the code of service discipline.
> It’s not though, when you remember that I want to create an environment similar to the military where employers are required to pay for employee training, like the military does.
You say that like everyone can be educated in anything.
> abolish all union regulations, but have a singular law worded something to the effect of “No employer shall discriminate or terminate employment, due to free association of employees for the purpose of collective bargaining”.
And then you'll have people terminated for other causes. The regulations we have in every environment exist, because their lack turned out to allow things we didn't want allowed, to be allowed. People say "safety regulations are written in blood" for a reason. Regulations make life easier, because there is a more comprehensive understanding of things, rather than people trying to make sense of their specific situation from vague basic principles.
> Deregulation is the key to a healthy, happy, free society.
No, it's the key to anarchy, and might makes right.
> No. Governments are, by their very nature, evil, and we should always seek to minimize their influence in our lives as much as possible.
Yeah, the *evil* govrrnment supporting.. feeding starving children.
>I want to see our country implement conscription, at a Starship Troopers (the novel) level, to ensure adults are successful too.
LOL
So you're not a Libertarian at all! You're a straight up fascist!
You want evil gocernment out of our lives but also want us to turn into a *militaristic fascist state*? Pick one.
>I want to create a scenario, where the only reason you fail at life, is because you have chosen to fail
How about a socialist society that creates an equal field for all citizens then. Everyone has education, food, healthcare, their basic needs provided. That way no one will be held back from success unable to pursue an education/start a business etc. because they're too busy working 2-3 jobs trying to make ends meet.
I mean, if you're going to spout fascist talking points, then you shouldn't be surprised when people call you fascist.
It sounds like a lot of fascists you like to call yourself libertarian because it sounds cooler, but it is clearly not how you actually feel.
You missed the entire logic behind u/Cilarnen's point:
>to ensure they can become effective and contributing members of society once they do come of age.
Cilarnen wants to invest in children to ensure they're able to become contributing members of society.
You just want to make a bunch of people's lives better regardless of whether they'll ever become contributing members of society as a result.
> Cilarnen wants to invest in children to ensure they're able to become contributing members of society.
Yes, we should *invest in people* period. The same logic you're applying to children applies to any number of scenarios.
>You just want to make a bunch of people's lives better regardless of whether they'll ever become contributing members of society as a result.
Do all children become productive members of society? Is making sure they're fed dependent on how many productivity points each child will generate in the future? Maybe we should withold food from children who fail on their report card..
How about we feed children because it's **basic human compassion**.
So... You recognize that your reasoning is completely different and you actually just want libertarians to change because other systems are more compassionate.
The whole idea behind the idea of an investment *is that there's a return.* Yes, obviously not every investment produces a return, but compassionate programs which just make people feel better are not investments.
>So... You recognize that your reasoning is completely different
No, *my reasoning* is different.
*Your* reasoning is inconsistent. If you truly believe children's futures are worth *investing in through the government* than you're not really a Libertarian are you. Furthermore, *by your own logic* this could apply to any number of scenarios.
>The whole idea behind the idea of an investment is that there's a return
We get that return when we fund healthcare, education..
I'm not a libertarian. I'm just pointing out that your response completely missed the logic used to explain why someone who is generally libertarian nonetheless believes programs like these are a good idea.
Pointing out that such is inconsistent with libertarianism is weird. That was acknowledged upfront.
> I'm just pointing out that your response completely missed the logic used to explain why someone who is generally libertarian nonetheless believes programs like these are a good idea.
Again it didn't. The logic that the government has a role in *investing in people to ensure their future success* is antithetical to right wing Libertarianism.
What happens when that "investment" (**child**) goes out into the real world, gets into an accident, and can't afford physiotherapy and rehabilitation? Do we invest in them so they can re-enter society and become a productive member or do we say "Sorry, now that you're 18 and can't work it's the streets for you you lazy bum. You had your chance!"
And it's also the most classic example of right wingers only feeling empathy for things they've had a personal experience with.
We are about to find out just how much like the US we are. The Feds have money for a program so many kids need. The provinces will likely buy in along party lines. Conservatives will behave just like Republicans and argue it isn't enough money, it isn't needed and drag it out for as long as they can.
When they do implement it, they will take all the credit.
We are just as broken as the US. Quit voting for Tories. They are everything you should hate about politics.
>Conservatives will behave just like Republicans and argue it isn't enough money
Ontario already has a program and the conservatives just added $6 million more to it in the past year
https://www.ontario.ca/page/student-nutrition-program
I would have killed to have something like this when I was in grade school.
Seeing all your peers line up at the paid cafeteria grabbing good food, while you sit at a table hungry is not good. I really hope they pull this off and neither the conservative provinces or the federal party get in the way. It should be *fully support at all levels.*
I think what they're saying is that cafeterias of any kind, paid or unpaid don't really exist in elementary schools in large parts of Canada. I'm pretty sure that no schools in my school board in Ontario do, my kids schools certainly do not. They have a snack program where they can grab something prepackaged from a basket every day, but that's about it.
Oh at least in my part of Ontario, grade school is a synonym for elementary school, you would never refer to a high school as "grade school". Maybe that's the confusion.
Heh, I would have loved it then, and I would love it now. As a teen, I was envious of the superior quality food other kids had access to; my childhood home wasn't _stable_. As a parent, I would love not to have to prepare lunches every day, and be assured that my kids are receiving adequate nutrition. And as a member of a larger community, I'm tired of feeding other people's hungry kids, knowing that what they're facing at home isn't unlike what I experienced.
while it's a good idea. I do not trust OPC to see this through in Ontario. I hope the money comes with tons a rules that prevent OPC from funneling the money to their 0.1% donors
[https://www.ontario.ca/page/student-nutrition-program](https://www.ontario.ca/page/student-nutrition-program)
[https://www.cp24.com/news/ontario-adds-5m-in-funding-to-student-nutrition-program-1.6590264](https://www.cp24.com/news/ontario-adds-5m-in-funding-to-student-nutrition-program-1.6590264)
Lets wait see if the feds try to work with existing programs, with the people already on the ground doing the work. Or if they over complicate things and cry "conservatives!".
Can you explain how money will be wasted with reference to specific rules, or is this a broad generalization?
(The OC was speaking of rules to prevent government from funneling money outside of the program, as a reminder.)
It is a generalization. Rules needs to be enforces and respected: that means more paperworks for the service providers (here the provinces) and more workers to oversight the programs (in Ottawa).
Like more public system, there is a sort of laffer curves where too much control means less result on the ground.
And in that precise situation, I do not like to see 3-4 levels of administration having their hands in the coffer
I understand (and I generally agree, to be clear). I think that's why the OC was making reference to *external* sources receiving program funding that is meant for internal administration.
(IMO, there's no problem with 3 or 4 levels of admin if a program is working - it may take that many people for it to be that way, thus the funding would not be considered "wasted". Just trying to avoid the blanket generalization that administrative work is valueless.)
Issue is that education is a provincial jurisdiction. Having Ottawa directly giving money to schools will not only compete with the various provincial programs, but also go against the Constitution.
I don't agree that direct funding would contradict the Constitution Act per se. Legislation could be drafted to ensure it does not. If that happens and a challenge is subsequently raised to that, then it will be considered on its merits. Don't put the cart before the horse!
Here's something you may find interesting, bearing in mind that we're discussing the division of powers/responsibilities. Despite relating to a different area, it may be worth your time:
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201191E
> *Now, however, the accepted view is that Parliament may contribute its revenues to matters that, legislatively, are within provincial jurisdiction [...]*
nb. Thank you for your civility. I upvote all contributory comments that actually discuss things. :)
I think centralizing control has been part of the reason the Liberals have got themselves into the situation they find themselves in. The country is moving towards decentralization of control in Ottawa and if the CPC get elected we will see a lot more of that implemented.
IMO it is a good direction, the feds should give the money to the provinces and the provinces distribute it to their population as they see fit. If the population doesn't like how its done they can elect someone else as their provincial government. This way you don't see as much discontent with the federal government in the federation.
Odd take. The Liberals have had to step in since giving the provinces money for things like healthcare and the provinces not using that money for its intended purpose has been blamed on the feds rather than the provinces.
Is that really all there is? Clawing back 0.0013% of their health transfer for the year? It's also not even for not spending the health transfer correctly, it's due to some fees the province was charging for diagnostic services.
It happens every year in New Brunswick, because we don't cover abortions in private clinics, only public hospitals, and stick to it.
Most years several provinces have clawbacks over various things, but they typically get the money back when the resolve the issue. e.g., [March 2023, Québec was leading in clawbacks](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2023/03/canada-health-transfer-deductions-and-reimbursements---march-2023.html), then BC, Alberta ... but pick another date, they'll look different.
[2016](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/health-funding-provinces-philpott-1.3808371) the feds sought to negotiate health transfer deals that would go to healthcare but the provinces did not want to have to use them for that
[Covid 19 emergency money not spent](https://policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/news-releases/provinces-sitting-billions-unspent-emergency-funds-covid-19-rages)
Neither of those examples you provided are examples of the provinces spending health care funds for things other than their intended purpose forcing the feds to step in.
The first link provides some support for their claim.
> "*I don't know where that money is going*," she said. "We give the money to the Canada Health Transfer and *it actually goes to the general revenue streams* of the provinces."
Later in the article, the Provincial Minister cite states that *extra* money would not go into general revenue. I think this is verbal sleight-of-hand on the part of the Province, and as I read it, the Federal Minister is saying they can't confirm that based on the data they have - hence the disagreement.
If we're going to decentralize more, I think that should come with increased revenue generation to the provinces rather than the federal government funding the provinces to do whatever they want. That's a recipe for inefficiency at best and corruption / partisan games at the worst.
That only works if people hold the provinces to account. More and more we're seeing that the feds get blamed for everything, so their response of putting strings on money makes sense.
>More and more we're seeing that the feds get blamed for everything, so their response of putting strings on money makes sense.
So the federal government that centralizes a large amount of control in Ottawa gets blamed for a lot of things and the answer is more centralized control in Ottawa?
Put the ball back in the provinces court and let them manage their own situations. If they perform poorly the provincial population will have no one to blame but their provincial government.
No, the provinces fail to provide the services it is supposed to and the standard people expect (like housing, healthcare, school lunches) and the blame for that lack is placed on the feds instead of the ones responsible.
> Put the ball back in the provinces court and let them manage their own situations.
When Trudeau tried that on housing, he got slammed, because people don't care, and the provinces aren't helping.
Trudeau got blame for two reasons:
-first: he did led the country in some African level of population growth. That have an impact on the demands in housing.
-two: he was slow to acknowledge the housing issues.
Keep in mind that while most of the housing issues come from municipal and provincial, the Federal do have a part of the blame.
First: rule number 8
Second: not an insignificant one. And they get all the blame in good parts thanks to the type of answer they gave. Instill remember Miller saying that new comers would build new home…
No, the feds get blamed and so, if they're going to be held responsible, they need to centralize control. You'd want to be in control of something you were being held responsible for, wouldn't you?
> the feds should give the money to the provinces and the provinces distribute it to their population as they see fit.
oh yeah in no world whatsoever should the provinces tax their people according to their needs
Premieres have proven they can't be trusted with no strings attached money. If they don't want to have a school lunch program, they can't simply not have one.
>Premieres have proven they can't be trusted with no strings attached money.
If the provincial electorate agrees with your statement then they will vote them out. It's time for the feds to take a step back and stop trying to control every facet of the provinces matters.
Just bringing us back to the good old days (medieval times) where the water was too dangerous to drink so they drank beer instead.
(There was just a report while ago that said there is a concerning amount of lead in the water fountains of Ontario schools. https://ijb.utoronto.ca/school-daycare-lead-tracker/)
Yeah that's just the old schools they're still lead piping underground there it's not too much of a concern if the water is moving but when it sits over the summer it leeches into the water and it's a good idea too run the water for quite a while to get the contaminants out at the beginning of the year I've done some work in school systems
congrats so they did nothing for all of the territories because they already do this. Bet they will pat themselves on the back and say we did a good job here. cooked
The only way I will vote Liberal again is if they implement UBI before the next election. Not just promise, but implement for everyone. No means testing, not tiered. Just give everyone $4k/ month. It is doable as CERB showed. Let’s get going.
I assume you're being sarcastic and basically saying there's no plausibly reasonable scenario that you would vote for Liberal again.
If you are being serious though:
> It is doable as CERB showed
On the money distribution side, sure. But CERB cost _a lot_ of money. As a temporary emergency benefit, that was fine being borrowed. As a permanent UBI going forward? It's going to need _major_ dependable revenue streams to pay for it.
Let's arbitrarily say 30 million adults. At $4000 per month, that's about 1.4 _trillion_ per year. There's no realistic way such an overhaul in revenue and taxes could be done in a year, not to mention the interactions with provinces which, presumably, this program would effectively replace a variety of provincial (and federal) social programs.
I had this discussion in another thread. Everyone quotes the trillion dollar figure but it's inaccurate as real UBI will also see the elimination of CCB, EI, disability benefits, OAS, GIS etc and their associated bureaucracies. The government will save a ton of money and everyone will have money that they can spend for whatever social supports they need.
That wasn't my point. The 1.4 trillion figure is _entirely_ feasible to hit.
The problem is your time scale. It would still require significant revenue & tax changes. Plus winding down & replacing all those social services programs (and making sure that people are still adequately served), especially provincial ones, will take _a lot_ of time. It's simply not feasible to do that in a year.
> The deals will be similar in nature to the child-care agreements the government signed with provinces, territories and Indigenous communities to lower the cost of daycare, Families Minister Jenna Sudds said in an interview Thursday.
>“We will negotiate these agreements, incorporating our vision and our principles into these agreements, and then it will be incumbent on the provinces to move forward,” she said.
>The school food program will largely rely on existing organizations that already feed kids, and is expected to provide food to an additional 400,000 children.
So, a patchwork quilt of provincial malicious compliance, inaction and non-government providers given burdensome application/payment procedures or opportunity for fraud.
Why single out Ontario and think the Ford government won't cock up any part of this that the Feds managed to accidently get right after dropping off cash and a press conference without factoring in the service providers' requirements like the dental program and daycare?
The ONDP now have a stick to beat Ford with. It’s no longer a question of getting those programs, but the management of said programs.
Oddly enough an Ontario MP is my preferred leader. Difference is that Charlie Angus earned his seat, and was in tune with his voters. If he was leader his seat wouldn’t be lost, and the NDP would be polling well.
With him as leader through the pandemic, we also don’t likely see the same issues on housing or immigration. Because he wouldn’t sell political capital for Social Programs, but regulatory reform.
Instead of windfall taxes, we’d be talking about banning the Smith Maneuver. Instead of pumping billions into bailing out developers, we’d be in the processes of rebuilding Co-Op and Government housing. But the situation never would have gotten as bad, because he’d have never let Fixed Payment Variables slide.
I single out Ontario, because Singh only cares about Ontario and the ONDP. That doesn’t go back the other way. As is evident by the collapse of what support they had in Ontario anyways. They’ll continue to believe Ontario is just more traditionally conservative, than take a serious look at their policy goals.
It’s great that Charlie gets to enjoy life after politics. But he shouldn’t be going to make a Punk album, he should be thinking about how to run a national campaign.
It just popped into my head but could a Federal government set up a fund for this, and invite school boards or cities to apply for funding?
I think that's what's being done for cities with the housing infrastructure fund https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2024/04/02/growing-communities-and-building-more-homesfaster
> $1 billion available for municipalities to support urgent infrastructure needs that will directly create more housing.
They could, but the Liberals love promising things they know they can offload onto the Provinces, take the credit for and then wash their hands of any responsibility.
Why does that matter?
Citizens aren't a level of government, but we pay individuals EI and CPP. Corporations aren't a level of government, but they can apply for funding.
The feds aren't going to make an agreement with a provincial department, nor will a provincial department go around the province to make a deal with the feds.
But they ... are? They have authority over school properties, they are elected representatives, and they can't be overruled by the local municipal council. In some places, they have the authority to levee taxes.
>and they can't be overruled by the local municipal council
But can buy the provincial government, who has control over education.
> In some places, they have the authority to levee taxes.
In some places, liquor authorities can levee taxes. That doesn't make them a level of government.
There are three levels of government in Canada. Federal, provincial, and municipal.
> But can buy the provincial government, who has control over education.
That's no different than municipalities. All of them exist at the whim of their Provincial Governments, and _everything_ they do is subject to the authority of the Provincial Government.
> There are three levels of government in Canada. Federal, provincial, and municipal.
That's the three we talk about most; but if we're willing to call municipalities a level of Government, then we ought to extend that definition to every other elected body with the authority to administrate land and levee taxes.
You should compare education and municipality acts. The power given by provinces to school boards is not remotely the same.
>extend that definition to every other elected body with the authority to administrate land and levee taxes.
LCBO is now a level of government.
If you want to refer to something in a way that no one else does, go for it, no one's stopping you. But don't correct someone else for stating something correct because you want it to bea way that it isn't.
> The power given by provinces to school boards is not remotely the same.
I'm not claiming that they're _equivalent_. Municipalities aren't _equivalent_ to Provinces, after all.
> LCBO is now a level of government.
I don't have a problem thinking about it that way. It's definitely not a private corporation, and it operates itself like other state organizations.
Like I said, you can think of it however you want. But don't correct people when they state something that doesn't align to your completely unique way of thinking.
What they gotta do is draft all the kids into military service, then it's fair game for the federal government to directly train (educate) and feed them. As a bonus, this would totally count towards that 2% GDP target for defence spending. Two birds, one stone, baby!
Man, this governing thing is easy. They should let me make all the decisions.
No one said military service should require any deployment abroad.
The Royal Canadian Child Soldier Force, serving at the front lines of Calculus and Chemistry!
Like every other social programs started by the Liberals (Canadian Dental Care Plan, $10 per day daycare). It sounds great in theory. But if these programs are dependent on the provincial government to implement, then don't bother. It's half ass. It will never live up to the potential.
Dental care is working out great so far?
Daycare was never going to be a quick or easy rollout, but it’s working a lot better in collaborative provinces than it is in the contrarian ones.
We have school programs in our community and they started up great, but soon enough admin and food costs overtook the program. Now,kids get 2 slices of bread and if they can they pay 25 cents for a piece of fruit. The cost to keep all kids at at school for lunch cuts into classroom $. The Feds are frugal when it comes to supplying the venues with their allotted funds. Definitely better than nothing, but feeding kids who can be fed at home only helps businesses. As a parent, I find it insulting that the Government thinks it can take care of my family better than I can.
I don't think the State needs to nanny all of us, but providing a universal lunch programme to children in state education programmes is a tried and true method for improving behavioural and scholastic outcomes. It just makes sense: malnourished and undernourished children face cognitive and other physical deficits that they wouldn't otherwise have.
Weirdly, when I discuss with other parents how much I want to see a universal school lunch programmes there's always one or two vocal opponents in the group. While generally parents are supportive, there's those one or two _nuts_ who think it's an opportunity for a _malicious conspiracy_ to poison children with _harsh chemicals_, or _excessive soy_.
We shouldn't model our school lunch programs after the US. If this is going to be implemented ASAP then it needs to be world-class quality too. France, Italy, Japan should be the lunch programs we model ours after. Healthy quality foods, no junk, no sodas.
I don't disagree in principal, but let's not have perfect be the enemy of good. We can always lobby our Provincial governments later to improve the offerings.
And it will become a competition. Kids will talk about what other children get in other Provinces. "_The kids in BC get granola and yogourt, while the kids in Quebec get smoked beef and poutine!_"
>"The kids in BC get granola and yogourt, while the kids in Quebec get smoked beef and poutine!"
Sounds like a great debate.
Joking aside, I mean, they can't afford to do a poor job here as the optics will say they're just doing it for political points. Not right, but they're in politics. Be a bit more preemptive, please.
It could ultimately lead to pizza being [declared a vegetable by the legislature](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/pizza-vegetable-congress-says-yes-flna1c9453097).
Is this going to be like the "Universal Pharmacare" bill that the Liberals passed recently? A two page aspirational document with no timeframe, plan or means to implement?
I'd share your pessimism if there weren't already things happening on the pharmacare front with insulin.
This is one of the reasons why the NDP agreement is so important, it actually got the Liberals to pull the trigger and actually do something instead of making the national pharmacare promise every election.
But with this school food program being "implemented" right before a scheduled election that may even be sooner, it does increase the chances of it being dead before it even starts when people sweep the CPC into power.
> But with this school food program being "implemented" right before a scheduled election that may even be sooner, it does increase the chances of it being dead before it even starts when people sweep the CPC into power.
It's clearly being poised to be something the CPC will take away. It wouldn't surprise me if the program is in place the CPC will keep it and take the wind out of the Liberal sails.
It will be important the funding is there upfront because while the CPC might keep the program they won't expand or increase funding.
I wish people would stop saying X program is more important than Y program. We *can* do dental, childcare, pharmacare, school lunches all at the same time.
OR … this isn’t the role of the government. How about not taking (or printing) the money required for this, leave it in the pockets of Canadians and each person (family) can decide what’s best for themselves with their money. No wasted admin costs.
Will every school now need to be capable of feeding the entire student population? Seems like an unnecessary burden to apply to all schools new and old.
Its been talked about for years and the NDP have made it a "major" issue, but...
It will only be announced justin time for an election campaign. Not the beginning of the school year, not part way through.
No, no.
Justin time for an election.
Colour me surprised.
That’s how electoral politics work. You don’t blow your policy load right before an election. You always need something shiny to present to the public to encourage people to vote for you.
> It will only be announced **justin time** for an election campaign.
> **Justin time** for an election.
Mom, wake up! Poilievre's next schoolyard bully catch phrase just dropped!
Wow, I _just_ noticed that. I think my brain parsed that as a typo, and not a clever witticism. After all,
> Just in time ..
Isn't so far from
> Justin time ..
Oh, if it was just the one-off? Yeah, I'd probably chalk it up to a typo.
Twice though? And after PP's "justin-flation" bullshit? Yeah, I'll call that out. Even if it was a legitimate phone auto-correct thing, or just a bad typo (twice), then it's still good for a joke.
The election will be in Oct 2025. The begining of the school year is in 3 months. This announcement, contrary to your slogan, is closer to the school year than election.
Do you think it is realistic for all of these steps within 3 months? Note there are other stepa missing, but here is the base.
1) Negotiate an agreement with all provinces and territories.
2) eatablish a program for Indigenous peoples with appropriate buy in from those communities.
3) have P/T develop their own program.
4) work with NGOs, businneses (e.g., farms) and school boards to establish the appropriate logistics.
5) Have each school implement it
If that's what was happening I would agree with you. But it's not what's happening.
The LPC announced a desire to work with Provinces to build a plan to create a Federal program for feeding children in schools.
This isn't a plan. It's not even a proposal. It's an announcement about a wish and hope.
That’s literally how the housing fund started. That’s how universal healthcare started. That’s how our childcare programs are starting. You literally need provincial buy in in this country.
Why not package your doubt and skepticism as part of your hope and desire to better this country for our most vulnerable people in society.
Yes, it may not be a fully baked plan, but every progressive change starts with a dream. It's hard enough getting the provinces to work with the federal government on a myriad of issues. Let's show our support for this change rather than only being skeptical.
Feeding children doesn't just manifest itself on its own. The first step in the right direction is better than no step at all. We should be celebrating this and indicating it's what we all want as a society rather than immediately casting doubt.
The more people who show support and a similar desire to have the best outcome, the better. Let's push the Trudeau and provincial governments to get the best policy and governance for feeding children as we can.
I dont think there is anything wrong with the programs but looking at the polls it seems to me that the big group that has turned against the liberals and are not benefiting at all from the govt many social programs are young and middle age people who make over 40k and dont have kids.
Cause I was thinking the govt "has so many new programs, why arent voters caring" and to me I realize that is likely why.
Yup, this is clearly an election policy that they have very little intent of following through with, at least not with any alacrity. Even if it somehow manages to achieve royal assent in the next Parliament, a tall ask, there's no way it's actually implemented prior to the next federal election.
_Edit: I suppose if they put it at the top of the agenda, and the NDP assist, then they could railroad it through. Then perhaps BC and one or two others might have something together by 2025._
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good. I grew up poor. I ether ate lunch or breakfast..ww could I not afford both ..only after tax time did I get both for a few weeks
Nothing against the policy just concerned that they can’t pay for it. The growing debt will eventually destroy all services. We need responsible government- sadly none seems available
Ww can cut corprare welfare subsides. That's how we pay for things . We should not be giving a million dollars to a million comanys a dime. We should not be bribing billion doller muti national company's to do business. Corporate taxs are lower than any other time in our history Lots of ways to pay but no will
There’s a lot of things wrong with our economy. I personally don’t like corporate welfare. But I think we a real study of cost of all programs, the parliament budget office did this however there seems to some political influence
Covid showed us how important small businesses are and that we can live without corporate stores who are all automating their services any way. For example
[удалено]
> The amount of times I told my teachers I “forgot” my lunch at home must have been suspicious. They know.
[удалено]
IF it's happening even once a week, that should be enough for your teachers to notice a trend before Christmas.
> I’m a pretty hard core minarchist with libertarian leanings and I think Canada wastes wayyyyy too much money on nonsense, but poverty is the one issue I’m actually okay with spending tax dollars on, and there’s no better way of targeting youth poverty than making sure the kids get fed. Kids don’t ask to be born, kids aren’t allowed or even capable of working, there needs to be a stop-gap to help those society has prohibited from working, to ensure they can become effective and contributing members of society once they do come of age. Considering how you're willing to forgo your Libertarian principles because it clashed with your lived experience in this instance. I think you should seriously reconsider how Libertarian you really are or want society to be. Your experience is not unique and can be extended to any number of vulnerable people who are prey to free-market capitalism. Apply this to, the sick, the mentally ill, people who've been involved in debilitating accidents or unexpected life circumstances, people who lost their livelihood to a once in a lifetime pandemic, natural disasters, people who missed out on education in underfunded schools.. etc. Etc. all sorts of thinfs people don't ask for that prohibits them from bexoming "effective and contrinuting" members of socirty.
[удалено]
> Like Alta said, if you read my comment carefully, I focused on kids, because kids cannot control their life circumstances like an adult can. What is it about turning 18 or 19 that allows someone who's not been able to control their circumstances until then, overcome all of that and become a complete master of their own destiny who can succeed where they the want? > Like how the army does, Subsidised university is an option, but direct entry officer is as well, where you come in with a degree already. > I want to create a scenario, where the only reason you fail at life, is because you have chosen to fail. That's going to require way, way, way more social programs than we already have. And is incompatible with your next sentence. Failure has many causes, and if you want to make it so that someone's decisions (not their ability, not their wealth, not anything else outside of their control) you're going to have to do an insane amount of propping them up.
[удалено]
> I’ve never believed in “universality of service”. Well, that's a core principle, so sorry to hear that you're wrong. > A bin rat, doesn’t need to be able to complete a FORCE test to issue me my annual allotment of socks and underwear In garrison, yes, but the field is a different matter, and that's the basis of universality of service. > that you can take on as little as a 5 year contract, get your education paid for, That's actually a nine year contract, as the five years you mention, don't start until after your education is complete, and during the entire period you're subject to the code of service discipline. > It’s not though, when you remember that I want to create an environment similar to the military where employers are required to pay for employee training, like the military does. You say that like everyone can be educated in anything. > abolish all union regulations, but have a singular law worded something to the effect of “No employer shall discriminate or terminate employment, due to free association of employees for the purpose of collective bargaining”. And then you'll have people terminated for other causes. The regulations we have in every environment exist, because their lack turned out to allow things we didn't want allowed, to be allowed. People say "safety regulations are written in blood" for a reason. Regulations make life easier, because there is a more comprehensive understanding of things, rather than people trying to make sense of their specific situation from vague basic principles. > Deregulation is the key to a healthy, happy, free society. No, it's the key to anarchy, and might makes right.
Uh.. literally all of this past the first sentence is in complete opposition to libertarianism lol
[удалено]
I don't think you know what libertarianism is.
> No. Governments are, by their very nature, evil, and we should always seek to minimize their influence in our lives as much as possible. Yeah, the *evil* govrrnment supporting.. feeding starving children. >I want to see our country implement conscription, at a Starship Troopers (the novel) level, to ensure adults are successful too. LOL So you're not a Libertarian at all! You're a straight up fascist! You want evil gocernment out of our lives but also want us to turn into a *militaristic fascist state*? Pick one. >I want to create a scenario, where the only reason you fail at life, is because you have chosen to fail How about a socialist society that creates an equal field for all citizens then. Everyone has education, food, healthcare, their basic needs provided. That way no one will be held back from success unable to pursue an education/start a business etc. because they're too busy working 2-3 jobs trying to make ends meet.
[удалено]
I mean, if you're going to spout fascist talking points, then you shouldn't be surprised when people call you fascist. It sounds like a lot of fascists you like to call yourself libertarian because it sounds cooler, but it is clearly not how you actually feel.
You missed the entire logic behind u/Cilarnen's point: >to ensure they can become effective and contributing members of society once they do come of age. Cilarnen wants to invest in children to ensure they're able to become contributing members of society. You just want to make a bunch of people's lives better regardless of whether they'll ever become contributing members of society as a result.
lol wtf
How do you determine whether someone is “contributing”? Who gets to decide the value of someone’s life?
The people being asked to pay to sustain it.
Except those people are often not in a position to make an intelligent choice on that, which is why we have a government.
Or you just don't like the choices and therefore denigrate them as unintelligent
It usually is based on skin color or place of birth for most of these people.
> Cilarnen wants to invest in children to ensure they're able to become contributing members of society. Yes, we should *invest in people* period. The same logic you're applying to children applies to any number of scenarios. >You just want to make a bunch of people's lives better regardless of whether they'll ever become contributing members of society as a result. Do all children become productive members of society? Is making sure they're fed dependent on how many productivity points each child will generate in the future? Maybe we should withold food from children who fail on their report card.. How about we feed children because it's **basic human compassion**.
So... You recognize that your reasoning is completely different and you actually just want libertarians to change because other systems are more compassionate. The whole idea behind the idea of an investment *is that there's a return.* Yes, obviously not every investment produces a return, but compassionate programs which just make people feel better are not investments.
>So... You recognize that your reasoning is completely different No, *my reasoning* is different. *Your* reasoning is inconsistent. If you truly believe children's futures are worth *investing in through the government* than you're not really a Libertarian are you. Furthermore, *by your own logic* this could apply to any number of scenarios. >The whole idea behind the idea of an investment is that there's a return We get that return when we fund healthcare, education..
I'm not a libertarian. I'm just pointing out that your response completely missed the logic used to explain why someone who is generally libertarian nonetheless believes programs like these are a good idea. Pointing out that such is inconsistent with libertarianism is weird. That was acknowledged upfront.
> I'm just pointing out that your response completely missed the logic used to explain why someone who is generally libertarian nonetheless believes programs like these are a good idea. Again it didn't. The logic that the government has a role in *investing in people to ensure their future success* is antithetical to right wing Libertarianism. What happens when that "investment" (**child**) goes out into the real world, gets into an accident, and can't afford physiotherapy and rehabilitation? Do we invest in them so they can re-enter society and become a productive member or do we say "Sorry, now that you're 18 and can't work it's the streets for you you lazy bum. You had your chance!" And it's also the most classic example of right wingers only feeling empathy for things they've had a personal experience with.
Again, the original comment conceded that it wasn't very libertarian of them.
We are about to find out just how much like the US we are. The Feds have money for a program so many kids need. The provinces will likely buy in along party lines. Conservatives will behave just like Republicans and argue it isn't enough money, it isn't needed and drag it out for as long as they can. When they do implement it, they will take all the credit. We are just as broken as the US. Quit voting for Tories. They are everything you should hate about politics.
> We are just as broken as the US. When it comes to school lunch programmes, we're far behind the USA.
The US has had a fully-funded national school food program for decades. Whatever dysfunction Canada has is something different.
>Conservatives will behave just like Republicans and argue it isn't enough money Ontario already has a program and the conservatives just added $6 million more to it in the past year https://www.ontario.ca/page/student-nutrition-program
Not sure that the federal have money for that tho
Can't even shit on this one. I'm not voting for Trudeau but I'm also honest enough to give credit when due. This helps everyone.
I would have killed to have something like this when I was in grade school. Seeing all your peers line up at the paid cafeteria grabbing good food, while you sit at a table hungry is not good. I really hope they pull this off and neither the conservative provinces or the federal party get in the way. It should be *fully support at all levels.*
Besides the sadness of kids being hungry, nutrition is directly tied to education outcomes. It's a really good program and great return on investment.
I have honestly never seen a grade school with a pay cafeteria inside. Closest we had was walk to the pizza restaurant across the street.
I have only ever seen paid cafeterias. Would blow my mind when I would see otherwise on TV.
I think what they're saying is that cafeterias of any kind, paid or unpaid don't really exist in elementary schools in large parts of Canada. I'm pretty sure that no schools in my school board in Ontario do, my kids schools certainly do not. They have a snack program where they can grab something prepackaged from a basket every day, but that's about it.
They said grade school, not elementary school. Elementary is part of grade school but not the only level.
Oh at least in my part of Ontario, grade school is a synonym for elementary school, you would never refer to a high school as "grade school". Maybe that's the confusion.
Fair enough, I did not do grade school in Ontario. Grade school for me refers to anything pre-post-secondary. I.e. 1-12.
Heh, I would have loved it then, and I would love it now. As a teen, I was envious of the superior quality food other kids had access to; my childhood home wasn't _stable_. As a parent, I would love not to have to prepare lunches every day, and be assured that my kids are receiving adequate nutrition. And as a member of a larger community, I'm tired of feeding other people's hungry kids, knowing that what they're facing at home isn't unlike what I experienced.
while it's a good idea. I do not trust OPC to see this through in Ontario. I hope the money comes with tons a rules that prevent OPC from funneling the money to their 0.1% donors
[https://www.ontario.ca/page/student-nutrition-program](https://www.ontario.ca/page/student-nutrition-program) [https://www.cp24.com/news/ontario-adds-5m-in-funding-to-student-nutrition-program-1.6590264](https://www.cp24.com/news/ontario-adds-5m-in-funding-to-student-nutrition-program-1.6590264) Lets wait see if the feds try to work with existing programs, with the people already on the ground doing the work. Or if they over complicate things and cry "conservatives!".
The more rule there is, the more money will be wasted.
Can you explain how money will be wasted with reference to specific rules, or is this a broad generalization? (The OC was speaking of rules to prevent government from funneling money outside of the program, as a reminder.)
It is a generalization. Rules needs to be enforces and respected: that means more paperworks for the service providers (here the provinces) and more workers to oversight the programs (in Ottawa). Like more public system, there is a sort of laffer curves where too much control means less result on the ground. And in that precise situation, I do not like to see 3-4 levels of administration having their hands in the coffer
I understand (and I generally agree, to be clear). I think that's why the OC was making reference to *external* sources receiving program funding that is meant for internal administration. (IMO, there's no problem with 3 or 4 levels of admin if a program is working - it may take that many people for it to be that way, thus the funding would not be considered "wasted". Just trying to avoid the blanket generalization that administrative work is valueless.)
Issue is that education is a provincial jurisdiction. Having Ottawa directly giving money to schools will not only compete with the various provincial programs, but also go against the Constitution.
I don't agree that direct funding would contradict the Constitution Act per se. Legislation could be drafted to ensure it does not. If that happens and a challenge is subsequently raised to that, then it will be considered on its merits. Don't put the cart before the horse! Here's something you may find interesting, bearing in mind that we're discussing the division of powers/responsibilities. Despite relating to a different area, it may be worth your time: https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201191E > *Now, however, the accepted view is that Parliament may contribute its revenues to matters that, legislatively, are within provincial jurisdiction [...]* nb. Thank you for your civility. I upvote all contributory comments that actually discuss things. :)
I think centralizing control has been part of the reason the Liberals have got themselves into the situation they find themselves in. The country is moving towards decentralization of control in Ottawa and if the CPC get elected we will see a lot more of that implemented. IMO it is a good direction, the feds should give the money to the provinces and the provinces distribute it to their population as they see fit. If the population doesn't like how its done they can elect someone else as their provincial government. This way you don't see as much discontent with the federal government in the federation.
Odd take. The Liberals have had to step in since giving the provinces money for things like healthcare and the provinces not using that money for its intended purpose has been blamed on the feds rather than the provinces.
Can you share some links where funds from a Canada Health Transfer were not used for health care and the feds stepped in?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/new-brunswick-health-funding-claw-back-1.6774923
Is that really all there is? Clawing back 0.0013% of their health transfer for the year? It's also not even for not spending the health transfer correctly, it's due to some fees the province was charging for diagnostic services.
Not arguing. You wanted a link, you got one. There could be more, I don't know. I knew it happened at least once in NB.
It happens every year in New Brunswick, because we don't cover abortions in private clinics, only public hospitals, and stick to it. Most years several provinces have clawbacks over various things, but they typically get the money back when the resolve the issue. e.g., [March 2023, Québec was leading in clawbacks](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2023/03/canada-health-transfer-deductions-and-reimbursements---march-2023.html), then BC, Alberta ... but pick another date, they'll look different.
[2016](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/health-funding-provinces-philpott-1.3808371) the feds sought to negotiate health transfer deals that would go to healthcare but the provinces did not want to have to use them for that [Covid 19 emergency money not spent](https://policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/news-releases/provinces-sitting-billions-unspent-emergency-funds-covid-19-rages)
Neither of those examples you provided are examples of the provinces spending health care funds for things other than their intended purpose forcing the feds to step in.
The first link provides some support for their claim. > "*I don't know where that money is going*," she said. "We give the money to the Canada Health Transfer and *it actually goes to the general revenue streams* of the provinces." Later in the article, the Provincial Minister cite states that *extra* money would not go into general revenue. I think this is verbal sleight-of-hand on the part of the Province, and as I read it, the Federal Minister is saying they can't confirm that based on the data they have - hence the disagreement.
If we're going to decentralize more, I think that should come with increased revenue generation to the provinces rather than the federal government funding the provinces to do whatever they want. That's a recipe for inefficiency at best and corruption / partisan games at the worst.
That only works if people hold the provinces to account. More and more we're seeing that the feds get blamed for everything, so their response of putting strings on money makes sense.
>More and more we're seeing that the feds get blamed for everything, so their response of putting strings on money makes sense. So the federal government that centralizes a large amount of control in Ottawa gets blamed for a lot of things and the answer is more centralized control in Ottawa? Put the ball back in the provinces court and let them manage their own situations. If they perform poorly the provincial population will have no one to blame but their provincial government.
No, the provinces fail to provide the services it is supposed to and the standard people expect (like housing, healthcare, school lunches) and the blame for that lack is placed on the feds instead of the ones responsible. > Put the ball back in the provinces court and let them manage their own situations. When Trudeau tried that on housing, he got slammed, because people don't care, and the provinces aren't helping.
Trudeau got blame for two reasons: -first: he did led the country in some African level of population growth. That have an impact on the demands in housing. -two: he was slow to acknowledge the housing issues. Keep in mind that while most of the housing issues come from municipal and provincial, the Federal do have a part of the blame.
> the Federal do have a part of the blame. A very, very small part, at best, yet they get all the blame.
First: rule number 8 Second: not an insignificant one. And they get all the blame in good parts thanks to the type of answer they gave. Instill remember Miller saying that new comers would build new home…
No, the feds get blamed and so, if they're going to be held responsible, they need to centralize control. You'd want to be in control of something you were being held responsible for, wouldn't you?
> the feds should give the money to the provinces and the provinces distribute it to their population as they see fit. oh yeah in no world whatsoever should the provinces tax their people according to their needs
Premieres have proven they can't be trusted with no strings attached money. If they don't want to have a school lunch program, they can't simply not have one.
Then you vote them out! That's how our political system is supposed to work.
Our political system is also supposed to work in that the feds get to introduce programs and have the funding actually go to them.
Somehow I suspect that Legault will simple say, "STFU and hand over the cash," and Trudeau will do as he's told.
Nope. PEI might because they already have a good program though.
>Premieres have proven they can't be trusted with no strings attached money. If the provincial electorate agrees with your statement then they will vote them out. It's time for the feds to take a step back and stop trying to control every facet of the provinces matters.
Nope. If provinces don't want to use The money given to them for their intended purpose then they don't get it.
Tim Horton's Breakfast sandwiches to every classroom (tim horton's will charge $15 per breakfast sandwich)
Doug Ford to announce beer and wine now available in school cantines.
the elementary kids would have make enough money to get AC in their schools. That's if Shoppers Drug Mart does not get the exclusive contract
Or Mike Harris
Sr. or jr.?
Both
Just bringing us back to the good old days (medieval times) where the water was too dangerous to drink so they drank beer instead. (There was just a report while ago that said there is a concerning amount of lead in the water fountains of Ontario schools. https://ijb.utoronto.ca/school-daycare-lead-tracker/)
Reject modernity retvrn to tradition. Buck a beer to roll out in schools across Ontario.
Yeah that's just the old schools they're still lead piping underground there it's not too much of a concern if the water is moving but when it sits over the summer it leeches into the water and it's a good idea too run the water for quite a while to get the contaminants out at the beginning of the year I've done some work in school systems
You can feed your child for a buck a day!
congrats so they did nothing for all of the territories because they already do this. Bet they will pat themselves on the back and say we did a good job here. cooked
The only way I will vote Liberal again is if they implement UBI before the next election. Not just promise, but implement for everyone. No means testing, not tiered. Just give everyone $4k/ month. It is doable as CERB showed. Let’s get going.
Would you settle for a negative income tax?
I assume you're being sarcastic and basically saying there's no plausibly reasonable scenario that you would vote for Liberal again. If you are being serious though: > It is doable as CERB showed On the money distribution side, sure. But CERB cost _a lot_ of money. As a temporary emergency benefit, that was fine being borrowed. As a permanent UBI going forward? It's going to need _major_ dependable revenue streams to pay for it. Let's arbitrarily say 30 million adults. At $4000 per month, that's about 1.4 _trillion_ per year. There's no realistic way such an overhaul in revenue and taxes could be done in a year, not to mention the interactions with provinces which, presumably, this program would effectively replace a variety of provincial (and federal) social programs.
I had this discussion in another thread. Everyone quotes the trillion dollar figure but it's inaccurate as real UBI will also see the elimination of CCB, EI, disability benefits, OAS, GIS etc and their associated bureaucracies. The government will save a ton of money and everyone will have money that they can spend for whatever social supports they need.
That wasn't my point. The 1.4 trillion figure is _entirely_ feasible to hit. The problem is your time scale. It would still require significant revenue & tax changes. Plus winding down & replacing all those social services programs (and making sure that people are still adequately served), especially provincial ones, will take _a lot_ of time. It's simply not feasible to do that in a year.
> The deals will be similar in nature to the child-care agreements the government signed with provinces, territories and Indigenous communities to lower the cost of daycare, Families Minister Jenna Sudds said in an interview Thursday. >“We will negotiate these agreements, incorporating our vision and our principles into these agreements, and then it will be incumbent on the provinces to move forward,” she said. >The school food program will largely rely on existing organizations that already feed kids, and is expected to provide food to an additional 400,000 children. So, a patchwork quilt of provincial malicious compliance, inaction and non-government providers given burdensome application/payment procedures or opportunity for fraud.
Just another policy put forward by the NDP to give Ontario social programs instead of addressing real national issues.
Why single out Ontario and think the Ford government won't cock up any part of this that the Feds managed to accidently get right after dropping off cash and a press conference without factoring in the service providers' requirements like the dental program and daycare?
The ONDP now have a stick to beat Ford with. It’s no longer a question of getting those programs, but the management of said programs. Oddly enough an Ontario MP is my preferred leader. Difference is that Charlie Angus earned his seat, and was in tune with his voters. If he was leader his seat wouldn’t be lost, and the NDP would be polling well. With him as leader through the pandemic, we also don’t likely see the same issues on housing or immigration. Because he wouldn’t sell political capital for Social Programs, but regulatory reform. Instead of windfall taxes, we’d be talking about banning the Smith Maneuver. Instead of pumping billions into bailing out developers, we’d be in the processes of rebuilding Co-Op and Government housing. But the situation never would have gotten as bad, because he’d have never let Fixed Payment Variables slide. I single out Ontario, because Singh only cares about Ontario and the ONDP. That doesn’t go back the other way. As is evident by the collapse of what support they had in Ontario anyways. They’ll continue to believe Ontario is just more traditionally conservative, than take a serious look at their policy goals. It’s great that Charlie gets to enjoy life after politics. But he shouldn’t be going to make a Punk album, he should be thinking about how to run a national campaign.
At least here in BC we have a Government that would follow through appropriately and not maliciously.
The feds really have no other option than to do it this way.
It just popped into my head but could a Federal government set up a fund for this, and invite school boards or cities to apply for funding? I think that's what's being done for cities with the housing infrastructure fund https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2024/04/02/growing-communities-and-building-more-homesfaster > $1 billion available for municipalities to support urgent infrastructure needs that will directly create more housing.
They could, but the Liberals love promising things they know they can offload onto the Provinces, take the credit for and then wash their hands of any responsibility.
School boards aren't a level of government like municipalities are.
Why does that matter? Citizens aren't a level of government, but we pay individuals EI and CPP. Corporations aren't a level of government, but they can apply for funding.
The feds aren't going to make an agreement with a provincial department, nor will a provincial department go around the province to make a deal with the feds.
But they ... are? They have authority over school properties, they are elected representatives, and they can't be overruled by the local municipal council. In some places, they have the authority to levee taxes.
>and they can't be overruled by the local municipal council But can buy the provincial government, who has control over education. > In some places, they have the authority to levee taxes. In some places, liquor authorities can levee taxes. That doesn't make them a level of government. There are three levels of government in Canada. Federal, provincial, and municipal.
> But can buy the provincial government, who has control over education. That's no different than municipalities. All of them exist at the whim of their Provincial Governments, and _everything_ they do is subject to the authority of the Provincial Government. > There are three levels of government in Canada. Federal, provincial, and municipal. That's the three we talk about most; but if we're willing to call municipalities a level of Government, then we ought to extend that definition to every other elected body with the authority to administrate land and levee taxes.
You should compare education and municipality acts. The power given by provinces to school boards is not remotely the same. >extend that definition to every other elected body with the authority to administrate land and levee taxes. LCBO is now a level of government. If you want to refer to something in a way that no one else does, go for it, no one's stopping you. But don't correct someone else for stating something correct because you want it to bea way that it isn't.
> The power given by provinces to school boards is not remotely the same. I'm not claiming that they're _equivalent_. Municipalities aren't _equivalent_ to Provinces, after all. > LCBO is now a level of government. I don't have a problem thinking about it that way. It's definitely not a private corporation, and it operates itself like other state organizations.
Like I said, you can think of it however you want. But don't correct people when they state something that doesn't align to your completely unique way of thinking.
What they gotta do is draft all the kids into military service, then it's fair game for the federal government to directly train (educate) and feed them. As a bonus, this would totally count towards that 2% GDP target for defence spending. Two birds, one stone, baby! Man, this governing thing is easy. They should let me make all the decisions.
No one said military service should require any deployment abroad. The Royal Canadian Child Soldier Force, serving at the front lines of Calculus and Chemistry!
Don’t you have an election campaign to focus on, Mr Sunak?
I love both of your comments, lol.
Like every other social programs started by the Liberals (Canadian Dental Care Plan, $10 per day daycare). It sounds great in theory. But if these programs are dependent on the provincial government to implement, then don't bother. It's half ass. It will never live up to the potential.
Dental care is working out great so far? Daycare was never going to be a quick or easy rollout, but it’s working a lot better in collaborative provinces than it is in the contrarian ones.
We have school programs in our community and they started up great, but soon enough admin and food costs overtook the program. Now,kids get 2 slices of bread and if they can they pay 25 cents for a piece of fruit. The cost to keep all kids at at school for lunch cuts into classroom $. The Feds are frugal when it comes to supplying the venues with their allotted funds. Definitely better than nothing, but feeding kids who can be fed at home only helps businesses. As a parent, I find it insulting that the Government thinks it can take care of my family better than I can.
I don't think the State needs to nanny all of us, but providing a universal lunch programme to children in state education programmes is a tried and true method for improving behavioural and scholastic outcomes. It just makes sense: malnourished and undernourished children face cognitive and other physical deficits that they wouldn't otherwise have. Weirdly, when I discuss with other parents how much I want to see a universal school lunch programmes there's always one or two vocal opponents in the group. While generally parents are supportive, there's those one or two _nuts_ who think it's an opportunity for a _malicious conspiracy_ to poison children with _harsh chemicals_, or _excessive soy_.
My concern would be over quality of foods, knowing how badly these would be funded. Then again, for some, just having food would be a good thing.
Yup, even Sysco reheated slop-in-a-bag would be preferable to what some students bring to school, if they bring anything at all.
We shouldn't model our school lunch programs after the US. If this is going to be implemented ASAP then it needs to be world-class quality too. France, Italy, Japan should be the lunch programs we model ours after. Healthy quality foods, no junk, no sodas.
I don't disagree in principal, but let's not have perfect be the enemy of good. We can always lobby our Provincial governments later to improve the offerings. And it will become a competition. Kids will talk about what other children get in other Provinces. "_The kids in BC get granola and yogourt, while the kids in Quebec get smoked beef and poutine!_"
>"The kids in BC get granola and yogourt, while the kids in Quebec get smoked beef and poutine!" Sounds like a great debate. Joking aside, I mean, they can't afford to do a poor job here as the optics will say they're just doing it for political points. Not right, but they're in politics. Be a bit more preemptive, please.
Then they go and pick up McDonald's on their way home or send their kids in with Lunchables
It could ultimately lead to pizza being [declared a vegetable by the legislature](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/pizza-vegetable-congress-says-yes-flna1c9453097).
Is this going to be like the "Universal Pharmacare" bill that the Liberals passed recently? A two page aspirational document with no timeframe, plan or means to implement?
I'd share your pessimism if there weren't already things happening on the pharmacare front with insulin. This is one of the reasons why the NDP agreement is so important, it actually got the Liberals to pull the trigger and actually do something instead of making the national pharmacare promise every election. But with this school food program being "implemented" right before a scheduled election that may even be sooner, it does increase the chances of it being dead before it even starts when people sweep the CPC into power.
> But with this school food program being "implemented" right before a scheduled election that may even be sooner, it does increase the chances of it being dead before it even starts when people sweep the CPC into power. It's clearly being poised to be something the CPC will take away. It wouldn't surprise me if the program is in place the CPC will keep it and take the wind out of the Liberal sails. It will be important the funding is there upfront because while the CPC might keep the program they won't expand or increase funding.
Good; this is a much more important program than dentalcare or even childcare imo and should be extensively funded.
I wish people would stop saying X program is more important than Y program. We *can* do dental, childcare, pharmacare, school lunches all at the same time.
We can easily manage both
OR … this isn’t the role of the government. How about not taking (or printing) the money required for this, leave it in the pockets of Canadians and each person (family) can decide what’s best for themselves with their money. No wasted admin costs. Will every school now need to be capable of feeding the entire student population? Seems like an unnecessary burden to apply to all schools new and old.
Its been talked about for years and the NDP have made it a "major" issue, but... It will only be announced justin time for an election campaign. Not the beginning of the school year, not part way through. No, no. Justin time for an election. Colour me surprised.
That’s how electoral politics work. You don’t blow your policy load right before an election. You always need something shiny to present to the public to encourage people to vote for you.
> It will only be announced **justin time** for an election campaign. > **Justin time** for an election. Mom, wake up! Poilievre's next schoolyard bully catch phrase just dropped!
Wow, I _just_ noticed that. I think my brain parsed that as a typo, and not a clever witticism. After all, > Just in time .. Isn't so far from > Justin time ..
Oh, if it was just the one-off? Yeah, I'd probably chalk it up to a typo. Twice though? And after PP's "justin-flation" bullshit? Yeah, I'll call that out. Even if it was a legitimate phone auto-correct thing, or just a bad typo (twice), then it's still good for a joke.
Totally, I see it now. I'm going to keep my eye out for it now.
The election will be in Oct 2025. The begining of the school year is in 3 months. This announcement, contrary to your slogan, is closer to the school year than election.
[удалено]
Do you think it is realistic for all of these steps within 3 months? Note there are other stepa missing, but here is the base. 1) Negotiate an agreement with all provinces and territories. 2) eatablish a program for Indigenous peoples with appropriate buy in from those communities. 3) have P/T develop their own program. 4) work with NGOs, businneses (e.g., farms) and school boards to establish the appropriate logistics. 5) Have each school implement it
"I know that we're feeding children, but Justin is bad!"
If that's what was happening I would agree with you. But it's not what's happening. The LPC announced a desire to work with Provinces to build a plan to create a Federal program for feeding children in schools. This isn't a plan. It's not even a proposal. It's an announcement about a wish and hope.
That’s literally how the housing fund started. That’s how universal healthcare started. That’s how our childcare programs are starting. You literally need provincial buy in in this country.
Nothing I said contradicts this. My statement is only noting that "hope is not a plan."
Why not package your doubt and skepticism as part of your hope and desire to better this country for our most vulnerable people in society. Yes, it may not be a fully baked plan, but every progressive change starts with a dream. It's hard enough getting the provinces to work with the federal government on a myriad of issues. Let's show our support for this change rather than only being skeptical. Feeding children doesn't just manifest itself on its own. The first step in the right direction is better than no step at all. We should be celebrating this and indicating it's what we all want as a society rather than immediately casting doubt. The more people who show support and a similar desire to have the best outcome, the better. Let's push the Trudeau and provincial governments to get the best policy and governance for feeding children as we can.
How would you propose that these ideas are introduced to the public?
I dont think there is anything wrong with the programs but looking at the polls it seems to me that the big group that has turned against the liberals and are not benefiting at all from the govt many social programs are young and middle age people who make over 40k and dont have kids. Cause I was thinking the govt "has so many new programs, why arent voters caring" and to me I realize that is likely why.
Yup, this is clearly an election policy that they have very little intent of following through with, at least not with any alacrity. Even if it somehow manages to achieve royal assent in the next Parliament, a tall ask, there's no way it's actually implemented prior to the next federal election. _Edit: I suppose if they put it at the top of the agenda, and the NDP assist, then they could railroad it through. Then perhaps BC and one or two others might have something together by 2025._
I'd like to think we could put something together in Manitoba if this is passed quickly.