Won’t somebody please think of the children?

Losing what little respect remains for the federal Liberal party

Jesse Beach, Volunteer Staff

I have long been critical of the federal Liberal party — critical of the party’s politics, its policies, and, of course, of its weak leadership. Yet amid my lingering doubts of the party’s inability to lead a successful government, there was at least, a begrudging respect that the Liberals had the best interests of the people at heart.

Not anymore. A private member’s bill that recently passed through the House of Commons over the minority government’s objections not only threatens to surpass Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s projected surpluses over the next two years, but also ignores the plights of low-income families. So much for the best interests of the Canadian people.

The bill, designed to give tax-breaks to RESP contributors, clearly favours richer families that have the disposable income necessary to make regular payments into RESPs.

The proposed bill, sponsored by Liberal MP Dan McTeague, would allow parents to contribute up to $5,000 annually for each child to a Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP) and deduct the amount invested from their income taxes. On the surface, the bill sounds reasonable, even responsible. However, the bill could have devastating effects on the Canadian economy and low-income families. Based on the current level of RESP contributions, the proposal would cost the federal treasury an estimated $900 million. However, the promise of a tax break would popularize the savings method, potentially driving the cost to over $2 billion every year — far surpassing the predicted surplus of 2.3 billion in the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009.

The lack of consideration for this matter is to be expected, as I have never seen the Liberals show any kind of insight into the consequences of their policy actions and I hardly expect for them to start now. However, the Liberals’ ignorant refusal to see the potential downfall that this proposed legislation will have on low-income families is astounding.

The bill, designed to give tax breaks to RESP contributors, clearly favours richer families that have the disposable income necessary to make regular payments into RESPs. The proposed bill, if passed, would not only drive the Canadian budget back into deficit, it could potentially remove funding from student grants and supplement payments to universities by forcing the government to look elsewhere for the necessary funds, essentially taking money from the poor to give to the rich.

These are the facts that the Harper government is imploring the Liberal-dominated Senate take into account as they consider whether or not to pass the proposed bill. Stephen Harper has long been a vocal critic of the Senate, calling the body undemocratic and proposing two controversial bills to reform it — one that would impose eight-year term limits and another that would create an election process for the appointed seats. As short ago as last month, Harper had threatened the Senate, this time over a crime bill that Harper was ready to call an election over were it not passed quickly. Though the Senate met that deadline, many of its members were furious over the prime minister’s continuing criticisms, threats and ultimatums. It seemed that the Senate would now be able to get its revenge on Harper, seemingly in the position to pass the bill and discredit the Harper government by pushing the economy into a deficit, all on the backs of the Canadian working class.

Céline Hervieux-Payette, the Liberal leader in the Senate, has promised that the Senate will give open-minded consideration to the bill before making an informed ruling. She did, however, express little sympathy for Harper’s predicament, telling the Canadian Press that if the Conservatives “have put themselves into a straightjacket and . . . have no margin, [the Senate is] certainly not going to take credit for that.” Hervieux-Payette is suggesting that perhaps the government deserves its present situation after two years of cutting taxes and hiking spending.

Hervieux-Payette may be correct that the Harper government deserves this, but the question is, do the people? If the Senate is truly going to make an unbiased decision based solely on the merits of the proposal, and not just a spiteful rebuke against Harper and his government, then isn’t it the responsibility of the Senate to look out for the best interests of the country? I have to say, I was more than a little worried that the Senate, acting under the guise of government accountability, would be so inclined to worm out of their own responsibilities to the Canadian people for an act of petty revenge.

Thankfully for the Canadian people, Flaherty took the matter out of the Senate’s hands last week, adding a provision to the budget that nullifies the proposed bill. Now, because the bill is part of the budget, it is considered a matter of confidence and Liberals will be forced to vote against their own bill in order to prevent an election. Subsequently, nothing has changed. The bill will not be enacted, the Liberals will not force an election, and Canada’s projected surplus will remain. The only thing lost is what small amount of respect I had once held for the Liberals’ concern of the Canadian people.

Jesse Beach is a fourth-year English student.