Rovik

Do you have a link to that claim?I know that the federal government was thinking of selling its 8.5% share in Hibernia and Williams asked that it be transferred (as in freebie) to the Newfoundland government. (Keep in mind that the federal government acquired its share in 1992 when Mulroney ponied up because others were bailing out. Hibernia was a very risky proposition.) As to MobileExxon, Williams threaten to force it to sell out to the other partners as an attempt to get it divulge financial information. Williams is going around claiming that he's being ripped off. He's about to scupper the Hebron deal because of his intransigeance. I happen to think Newfoundlanders have in general been poorly served by their provincial leaders. There's always a whiff of one-man show, tinpot dictator. But what do I know... This link Cash cow lays out the provincial govt. idea to purchase the Federal government share. Here's an excerpt: And regarding Mobil Exxon. I couldn't find a link saying that the govt would buy out MobileExxon, but I remember him mentioning it on local TV. I do admit that I may have misheard or misundertsood what he said. You are generally right on what he did say (on the links I have found) but here's more info from a link Hebron shelved; Williams takes aim at Exxon Here's some excerpts: Seems to me that it was ExxonMobil that scuttled the deal not the Newfoundland govt. There have been lacklusture Newfoundland ex-Premiers, in my opinion. such as Brian Peckford and Brian Tobin but I have to say that Danny Williams does not fit the way you portray him. He hasn't been suckered like Peckford was with the Sprung Greenhouse fiasco and he didn't sign a bad deal with Inco or almost sign a bad deal with Quebec over the Lower Churchill like Roger Grimes. Newfoundland is in the best shape it has been in years and Williams has done this by being tough with various negotiations, unlike many former Premiers that would give in to companies to get some short-term jobs but no long term gain for Newfoundland. He's been tough with business and tough with the Federal government and he hasn't played favourites as he has been tough with unions as well. A year or so ago, he allowed the Auditor General access to info that was blocked by previous govts and because of that, some of the MHAs including from his own party, have been caught doing possible fraudulent activites...so he is starting to clean up the government as well. I have to admit that it's strange for me to praise a Conservative premier but he deserves it and the level of popularity is one of the highest it has ever been for a sitting govt. in Newfoundland. And he's willing to fight the Federal Tory government if that don't come through with their election promises such as monies for the Trans Labrador Highway and too work on custodial management of the Grand Banks. There have been some that call him dictorial like the Liberal opposition (shocker that) but in my opinion, he can't touch Stephen Harper with it comes to being dictorial.

You don't seem to understand. The provincial govt. is willing to purchase the Federal's govt share of the Hibernia oil field and even entertained buying out Mobile Exxon's share of the oil field. This was without any monies from the Federal govt., therefore no other Canadians would have to pay for it. And in regards to the royalties from the oil companies, the Federal govt has nothing to do with this other then perhaps grabbing a share for themselves (so this means more money for Canadians on a whole not less)

I know that the government of Newfoundland has offered to buyout the federal's government share of Hibernia but were flatly turned down. And I believe that the oil companies have no intention of seeling their share of the oil fields. The reason being is that the oil fields are too much of a "cash cow." So unfortunately, there is not much Newfoundland can do in gaining more control.

Alberta has lower royalties then Newfoundland? Well not as far as I can tell. Here is a few excerpts from the following article: Williams pushes hard against Exxon So you see; you are mistaken in your observations.

And within these Wetsren nations (I wonder how many you are referring to,) have you also broken down the regional unemployment rates because the best way would be to compare the regions within these nations not the nations themselves to get an accurate comparsion. And I do blame the government of Canada for keeping prosperity down in the Atlantic region, but not for the reasons you suggest, which in my opinion you have exaggerated. It's the mismanagement of the resources of the Atlantic region, such as mismanagement and the government's willingness to use the fish stocks as a bartering chip with other nations to boost trade (especially for the manufacturing region in Central Canada) with the Atlantic's fishery being the sacrificial lamb. The Federal govt often favoured other provinces over the Atlantic regions for political reasons. For example, when Newfoundland tried to change the terrible deal with Quebec over Churchill Falls in which Quebec reaped huge profits and Newfoundland got virtually nothing, the federal govt. supported Quebec's position through the 70s, 80s and 90s, even though they could see that Newfoundland needed the extra revenues badly. I also blame many of the businesses that have come here over the years demanding huge tax incentives to setup here, all the while paying lower wages then comparable jobs in central and western Canada and often getting up and leaving when the tax incentives and breaks stopped. In regards to the oil industry, if Newfoundland got the sweet-heart deal in royalties that Alberta received from the oil companies, Newfoundland would be very close to a have province. Recently, the Newfoundland govt. requested a better deal with the Hebron oil field with the oil companies but they refused, though they are making billions of profits off Hibernia and Terra Nova. Again, Atlantic Canada is not second class, the only thing second class are people's attitudes in the rest of the country (not all but enough to be irritating) that Atlantic Canada is a nanny-state. And in regards to the oil industry, would one sacrifice prosperity for the people of the Atlantic region (and the region itself in regards to better infrastructure, healthcare and the like) so that the shareholders can get a higher ROI? I think most people with a conscience would say no.

3rd world?!? Maybe Atlantic Canada might not be as prosperous as Alberta or Ontario but to say third world is pushing it beyond the lines of extreme. With oil and gas in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, the nickel and iron ore mines in Lbarador, a revamped fishery that doesn't have have to deal with the federal goverment of Canada, argiculture especially in the Maritimes, potential hydro in Labrador and a possible revamp of the bad Lower Churchill deal with Quebec. And this is just off the top of my head. It's sad to hear the arrogance of similar minded people like yourself in Alberta and Ontario that continue to put down Atlantic Canada and make it sound like a second class part of Canada.

The Americans dropped the ball when they went into Iraq in the first place. Their reasons for going in and in the process, arrogantly bypassing the UN was to find WMDs, which they didn't find and to fight terrorism which before the war, terrorist groups had little power in Iraq. In fact, the Al Queda has more sway in Iraq now then it did before the US went into Iraq. Many say that the real reasons for going into Iraq include, US control of oil resrves in Iraq, to satisfy Bush's anger toward Saddam after Saddam tried to assassinate his Dad in the early 90s and to provide a huge cash cow for companies such as Chaney's Haliburton. They should have focused on Afghanistan at the time sending in soldiers that were instead directed to Iraq and many say that if they did, Afghanistan wouldn't be in as bad a mess as it is today and perhaps less people would be dying including Canadian soldiers.

Charest has come out and said that Quebec will support Kyoto even if Harper and the Conservatives flip-flop on Canada's agreement on Kyoto and break it. Here is the link to the article in the Globe and Mail Quebec to go it alone on Kyoto, Charest says Some quotes from that article: Could this erode support for the Conservatives in Quebec?

Well, there are certainly huge gas reserves in Afghanistan, and foreign companies would love to get access and control to their reserves. Here is a quote from the site: What's at Stake for Whom So as you can see, there is a huge potential for Afghanistan for oil and gas companies to make profits. In addition, because of America's heavy reliance on oil, it is in their best interest to see Afganistan under control of a govt. friendly to them

The original mandate is to finish what we went in their for in the first place and that is to wipe out the scum who killed innocent people and ruined the lives of our freinds, negibours and our allies. As Harper so bluntly states it we would be cutting and running if we pulled out now. Lets just keep on figthing until we finish this thing, lets not remeber we have not been attacked yet and let us keep it that way, and the only way we can do that is to continue fighting this war until it is one. Yes, you are right about the purpose of the original mandate but again the original did have an expiry date of 2007. How long are we supposed to stay there; until the job is defined as "finished"? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? And at what cost to the taxpayers of Canada? Billions and billions of dollars?

Actually, the last few years, especially in Newfoundland, we have seen some turnabout in the local economy. Newfoundland has been seen higher percentile growths then most of the other provinces mainly due to oil. There is also potential in the Inco Nickel mine in Voisey's Bay, and a possible Lower Churchill hydro development as well as a mini-boom at the iron ore mines in Western Labrador. The problem is in rural Newfoundland which relies on the fishery and forestry (to a lesser extent.) Government spending has helped jumpstart (and quite sucessfully) tourism and aquaculture but these minor industries can't provide employment for all unemployed fisherpeople. This is where EI and social assistance come into play; mainly with the older people who are short of retirement by 10-15 years and are also uneducated. Most younger people have either gone out west or moved to the St. John's area. Therefore govt. spending has helped. I can't see any quick solution to make the region on par with the national average (though the unemployment rate has been dropping the last few years.) Problem is that we can't attract large factories to the region (due to distance from the US markets and the cost of shipping) and the fact that companies often ask for too much such as tax breaks, incentives and holidays (and like I said before, Newfoundland has been burned in the past by such companies, who often leave after the tax advantages time period finish.) Standard of living is still pretty good because of the equalization payments. Perhaps the main problem is in healthcare, where we have a hard time attracting doctors because they can get better salaries elsewhere. It's hard to compete against Alberta or the States in this manner. Recently, the Newfoundland govt. and a consortium of oil companies could not come up with a deal regarding a new oil development (Hebron.) The govt. believes that the province did not get that great a deal(s) with Hibernia and White Rose and feels that the oil companies could offer a better deal with Hebron. The oil companies wanted tax incentives and breaks that would very much negatively impact any returns for the province. And let's face it, the oil companies are making loads of profit, in the billions of dollars and yet they weren't willing to offer the province a fair deal. Newfoundland has been burned by the Upper Churchill deal and many now believe, the deal with Inco and will not just take any deal just for some short term gains by creating a few jobs, while on a whole the population doesn't benefit from their own province's resources. Let's face, the oil companies only care about their making money for their shareholders and don't care much about the people of the province. Well the Conservative government has talked about lowering business taxes (especially small business) if it could do so without adversely impacting on the bottom line (social programs, public workers' salaries, etc.) Second, the minimum wages here are already amongst the lowest in Canada and could be called slave wages because it's near next to impossible to survive on them and you suggest lowering them??? Untrue, there is already oil and gas and the reason there isn't more is because the oil companies are not willing to give a fair deal. In fact, the longer the govt. holds out, the better because we all know that the demand of oil is not going to go away. It's a case of short-term pain for long-term gain. You seem to imply that most of these unemployed people are on welfare when in fact most are on EI (with few been on welfare.) And when these people are working 14-20 weeks in the fishery, they are paying into EI, therefore they are entitled to receive EI when they require it What you suggest is not dignity, it's misery. And to suggest that people should work at a lower minimum wage is heartless in the extreme. So now unemployed people are like commodities to be exported. We currently have a very strong-willed premier in Danny Williams who will fight tooth and nail for the province. And where would Alberta be without the oil reserves? Would it be in as good a shape?

That's all Canada is right now. I view it as a seperate couple where one of the partners is hard working paying the bills of the other, while they just sit around and do nothing. There is too much regionalism, too many divergant opinions on issues for Canada to be more than name with common defense and free inter-provincial trade. Why do they deserve more than anyone else? Remove their status, remove their reserves. It's time we moved on to the 21st century. I complain about the farmers too equally, you'll find plenty of evidence of that in many of my posts. Here the deal, if there is no work, you have to move somewhere that is. This is more evidence that Canada is not a country. Why aren't all unemployed Maritimers moving west to high paying jobs? Because they don't see it as their responsibility, they don't see it as Canada. Instead they waste away on welfare for the rest of their lives in fishing villages. Again, lets move on to the 21st century and leave these ridiculous dogma's behind. Unemployment is completely by choice today in Canada, and there is no reason for it other than pure complacency. Wrong again. It's transfers that make have-not provinces poor. What motivation does Newfoundland or PEI have to fix their problems when Alberta will just pick up their bill anyways? Cut transfer payments, and yup, there would be a few years of suffering, but afterwards these provinces would smarten up and make sound choices about their economies instead of their current government's welfarist policies that condone the culture of defeat. I say as long as the money is spent towards issues related to our security, whether thats offensive or peacekeeping. Not at all. Like I said, cut federal taxes by 75%, that leaves 75% for provinces to raise taxes as they see fit. Health care, social programs and education should not have federal involvement, they are purely provincial jurisdiction. Provinces should raise their own revenues to deal with this but instead most of the money goes to Ottawa. You keep on mentioning the 21st century; I wouldn't want to leave in the mean-spirited 21st century that you presribe to. You claim that there is too much regionalism, but I believe your means of reasoning will increase regionalism not diffuse it. Without the equalization transfers to the poorer provinces, how will they be able to provide services to their people and at the same time maintain their infrastructure (roads, bridges and the like.) They could cut spending on some serivices, but they can only go so far before cutting to the bone; they could raise taxes but that would be detrimental to their people. The richer provinces such as Alberta (oil) don't need to raise their taxes because of the huge royalties they collect from either oil or taxes from a large manufacturing sector (due to close proximity to the US border.) Newfoundland and to a lesser extent, Nova Scotia, are collecting oil and gas royalties (though not in the league as Alberta and the oil companies don't seem to want to give the same sweetheart deal to Atlantic Canada as they did to Alberta) but its only a start. At the same time, the fishery and the forestry sectors in the Atlantic provinces are in dire straits. So the Atlantic provices, in a effort to bring business to the area, provide huge tax incentives, breaks and holidays to business. For example, there have been a lot of telemarketing firms setting up shop in the region, but the wages are relatively low and jobs are stressful. And the act of giving businesses tax breaks and hoildays has often backfired. Often in the past, once the tax holiday period ends, many of these businesses up and leave or go out of business. So yes, the Atlantic provinces have indeed tried to attract business but often have been burned in the process, with the taxpayers bearing the blunt. And yes, the Atlantic provinces have been trying to fix their economic provinces with a mixed bag of success and failure and the transfer payments do not promote a welfare state or a culture of defeat but a relative parity with the rest of Canada in regards to health, education and social programs. There were indeed injustices done to the Natives. They were forced into reservations, and were decimated by disease and alcoholism. In Newfoundland, the entire Beothuck people were wiped out and all that is left of them is relics. In addtition, like it or not, Canada signed treaties with many of the Native peoples and can't just cancel them out of hand. That being said, they shouldn't be given a blank check either. There should be checks and balances to prevent corruption. There are indeed a high amount of Newfoundlanders and Maritimers (Newfoundland is not part of the Maritimes by the way,) going out west for jobs. Sure it is said that Fort McMurray has the second biggest Newfoundlanders population behind St. John's. Many of these are young Newfoundlanders and the result is a brain drain from Mewfoundland and a decreasing population in Newfoundland which means a smaller tax base. Newfoundland companies can't match the salaries that are offered by Alberta companies and the government, to avoid nurses, teachers and other public workers leaving for higher paying jobs in places like Alberta and Newfoundland, have to offer higher wages then they might ordinarily. This is paid for by the taxpayers by either increasing taxes or services or not been able to offer tax cuts to pay for the increased wages. I believe that an individual who leaves to work in a richer province like Alberta should for about two years, pay have their provinical taxes half and half with Alberat and the poorer provicen they left. It's not like Alberta needs the extra cash. And if what you suggests comes to past, regarding people leaving the poorer provinces for the richer ones, then you might as well designate the whole of Atlantic Canada a National park because there would be hardly anyone left. You got to understand; people in the outports have nice homes, many are in their 40s and above with no education (the fishery is the only thing they have ever known) and you are asking them to leave their nice homes and work in a labourer type of job, living in a dingy apartment (we all know how expensive houses can be in Alberta and Ontario) and leaving their family behind. Sure that would be a huge step backwards in their lives and too expect them to do this almost borders on heartless. And by the way, there are not many wasting their lives on welfare. What happens for most is that they work for 14-20 weeks until the fishery ends, then they are on EI until the fishery begins again. It's easy for you too say that provinces should raise their revenues to pay for healthcare and social programs if you live in Alberta. But if you live in a province with a decreasing population, (therefore a decreased tax base) and a province that doesn't rake in a lot of money from a large manufacturing sector or royalties from oil (though I admit, in Newfoundland we are finally getting some breaks due to the oil and the Atlantic Accord,) then its hard to raise the revenues without Federal help. It's funny, I've often heard Westerners complain about Central Canada ignoring them but at the same time many pro-Conservative Westerners think they have the blanket-wide solution for Canada that many here in Atlantic Canada believe will not work here and in fact, be very problematic and devastating for the region.

Are we suppose to take this seriously; from a blatant heavy pro-right wing blog. I'm sure a left winger can post from left leaning blogs saying how foolish the opinions and actions of Harper and the Conservatives. But of course, some of the extreme right wingers here have the opinion that Harper and the Conservatives can do no wrong, wonder where they bought their rose-coloured glasses.

You forgot an important option: No, complete the original mandate in 2007 and then determine if we should keep the soldiers there or not (depending on circumstances) This is what I would choose, for if things on the ground are no better or even worse, then send the soldiers to another part of the world that better needs them (like Darfur for example). And if some other country wants to go into Afghanistan to take over the job that the Canadians have been doing up to 5 years by that time, so be it.

I believe that the most important thing is not the fact that the individual was rejected by the oppostion but by the fact that Harper, instead of picking someone else, decided to shut down the whole commission. It's almost like a child in a playground. The child wants to play with just one toy but is told that the toy is inappropriate, but instead of playing with another toy, the child doesn't want to play anymore and wants to go home. His heavy-handed approach of cutting the commission, because he didn't get the guy he wanted, will not help his image with those who would consider voting Conservative in a future election.

Man, with what your are suggesting, you seem to want a two-tiered Canada, a poor Canada and a rich Canada, a poor Canada where healthcare, education and employment are approaching third-world and a rich Canada wiht the best of everything. Basically, what you are suggesting is a country with regions having different standards of living and if you think about it, only a country in name only. - I disagree with cutting funding to natives people but to streamline it and have safeguards and checks to prevent the money from being wasted. I do agree that native peoples or anyone one for that matter should be charged if they break the law. - Obviously you don't know the situation here in Atlantic Canada and sadly have a misconception that many central and western Canadians do that the fishermen are lazy bums that rely on EI for most of the year drinking beer and doing nothing in the meanwhile. Guess what? This is a wrong perception. These fisherpeople live in small communites where the only industry is the fishery. There are no factories, no fast food joints, virtually no retail (other then small corner stores) to work at when the fishery is closed down. These people are hardworkers, and often will do anything to survive when the fishery is closed including growing their own food, doing odd jobs and whatever else they can do. And if you want to stereotype them as people with their hands out then I believe it is a grave injustice. For those who believe this way in Alberta and Ontario, come to Newfoundland and you see that the circumstances are completely different. And to add, lately there has been more government finanical support for the farmers then the fishermen but one doesn't hear about people complaining about the farmers. A double-standard if you ask me. - You cut federal spending in these areas, then the only provinces that could maintain a decent standard in healthcare, education, etc. would be Alberta, Ontario and BC. Again this would be creating a two-tiered Canada and a Canada I think would have lost its soul. - I agree, cut the fat out of the military and put the money toward the servicepeople and equipment (as long as the money is geared towards peacekeeping and not offensive operations.) - If cut 75%. then the social programs that people in this country need would be cut to the bone or even decimated. This is not the spirit of Canada.

Harper, if he was serious about ethics should never have picked this person as the head of the public appoinments commissions. And if he was really serious, he should have picked someone else who would more fit the role instead of coping out and dismissing the committee outright. Makes one wonder if Harper was serious about the commission in the first place, for he must have known the reaction by naming this person as head. And after I read the NDP's reasons for calling this person unsuitable, I can understand why he wasn't a good choice. From NDP Site: NDP motion passes: Gwyn Morgan “unsuitable Some info from above website: and

CBC NewfoundlandI think this is a small allegory for understanding Harper's developing relationship with ordinary Canadians. Gander Beacon We'll see. This is perhaps the easiest promise for Harper to come across on as it is relatively inexpensive with minor consequences. Here are some other promises he made to Newfoundland during the election campaign (and Newfoundlanders will be seeing if he keeps his word.) Following quotes from From Province of Newfoundland website - Harper's response to Premier's Williams list of questions: Newfoundlanders would like this to curb foreign overfishing. Let's see if the Conservatives will actually do something about this or will they just play games like the former Liberals did...remember the theatrics with Tobin and the Estai incident. This was the response to Premier Williams asking if the Conservatives are willing to offer loan guarantees to develop the Lower Churchill. These guarantees could be in the hundreds of millions range or more. Newfoundland has lost a lot of federal jobs over the last 10 years and Newfoundland wants many of these jobs back. For example, why are most senior DFO officials in Ottawa when most of the action is in Newfoundland and the rest of Atlantic Canada (and in BC as well.) The Gander weather station is a good start but it is only a start and very minor in the scheme of things. This would be an expensive venture for the government considering some estimates to finish the highway have been in the billions of dollars. It's hard to believe that a Conservative government would do such a thing but in this case, they did promise. So you see, the Gander weather station was an easy promise to keep (though I agree it was good that the Conservatives came across.) Let's see if they follow up on their other promises and if they don't; Newfoundlanders won't forget.

Well, perhaps two parents may have to work because their take home pay is so low after all the taxes collected to pay for increased military spending (personally, I agree with if it earmarked toward peacekeeping though the parents might not agree with.) Not necessarily are all aspects taught at home. There are such things as basic computer skills and games that promote teamwork that kids may not get at home, for example, not all households have computers and it's hard for a child to learn teamwork on a constant basis if that child is an only child. Well, some kids need a kickstart to get that "natural instinct to get right into it." For example, my cousin has one child, a boy, who was super shy (part of the reason was that she and her husband lived in an area where there were not many kids in the neighbourhood.) Once she brought him to daycare when he was three years old, she saw a huge change and he become more social, more confident in himself. Those ECE grads work hard everyday to provide a caring, learning environment for the children and in regards to teaching the kids to "dress up and button up," perhaps one should talk to those kids' parents! And in regards to the teacher not making sure the kids are dressed up for the weather, then perhaps that teacher needs to be talked to. If I saw a similar event as you did, I would complain to that teacher and if that didn't work, to her supervisor. First, if you ask a lot of people about daycare, "undesirable," would not be the word they would use. It's not an "essential part of the educational system" because if a family can afford to have a family member look after the child at home or if they know someone they can trust to look after a child, then daycare is not essential. It becomes essential to those where both parents work and where either or can't afford to stop working or for a singlle mom, perhaps going to college or university. So no, you won't see it beome mandatory because not 100% of the population need it and to suggest that it become mandatory is an exaggeration bordering on the ridiculous, in my opinion. You be surprised how many non-left wingers support the National Childcare program. At the Memorial University daycare, for example, other than the students themselves, Scientists and Business people are big users of the Daycare and I've been told that many of these people support the Daycare. And many of these people, would not be considered left wingers. Now seriously, do you think this is a big conspiracy to brainwash kids into becoming left-leaning adults. Of course, he wouldn't comment on a far-fetched idea, to do so would be given it more credence than it deserves. It's almost like saying that the Conservatives have an agenda to completely cut out social programs and the cutting of the daycare, Kyoto an Kelowna agreements is the start. Even the most fervent left-wingers know that the Conservatives will never completely get rid of social programs True, they should have pushed it when they first promised it over 12 years ago. if they did, it would implemented today. The Liberals are notorious for promising things at elections and never following through unfortunately. You call the Conservative plan giving people a choice?? How does this give a single Mom going to university a choice? How does this give working parents a choice when one has to quit their job and career to look after the kids. And the ones to get hit hardest by this? Working women. The Conservative plan in many ways and situations does not offer a choice at all.

......and how much of the Liberal plan would cover that amount? I really don't know the details but I'm sure it would be more than that, depending on the demographics of an area. And the Liberal plan would also cover children above six years old, which isn't covered by the Conservative's plan, to help offset the costs of after-school programs for example. Well by your logic, government should make the eating of fruits and veggies, an essential food group, also compulsory. People, just as they have a choice to eat something good like fruits, also have a choice to use daycare if they so desire. But if they don't, well that's their choice. If child care was completely up to the provinces, there would be huge disparities within Canada. I could see Alberta with top of the line daycares paying their workers $20/hour while in poorer provinces, the daycares would only be half as good and paying their workers $9/hour. I agree

Just because parents, who after have no other choice but to put their kids in daycare, (parents with two jobs for example) put their kids in daycare does not mean they don't give a hoot or are not involved with their children. I just showed this to my friend (the ECE I talked about earlier) and she assures me that their are no questionable methods used where she works. Any "methods" are thoroughly discussed by the coordinators and the staff of each section (toddler, preschool, etc.) and they won't use methods just because they have been suggested in some book. They will use their experience and "common sense" in communicating and interacting with the children in the best way possible for the children. She also assures me that they do discipline children when necessary and she hasn't heard of a local daycare that does what you suggest about discipline. She feels that you are either misinformed about daycare or the daycares in your area are radically different then the ones here. And lastly, most of the daycare jobs here in Newfoundland are privately based and these people make about $8-$9 dollars per hour with little benefits...not exactly a high pay-rate. There are a couple of public daycares in town but even then the rate is only around $10-$15 and again, they are in the minority. In fact, the daycare workers here are so underpaid that they receive a quarterly supplement of 4 to 5 hundred dollars to top up their salaries because the private daycares are not willing to increase wages (they claim they wouldn't profit otherwise.) And my friend says that she and her follow co-workers, if they were in it for the money, wouldn't be working at it. They are in it because they love their jobs and the satisfaction of helping a young person develop eventually into a loving adult.

I disagree. I consider it an essential part of the educational system. A daycare teaches the children social skills and interaction. Children who attend daycare are more prepared for Kindergarden than children that haven't attended daycare. One could almost call it pre-Kindergarden. In addition, if a parent wants to stay at home to look after their children, they are not obliged to put their children in daycare. Often you have both parents working and there is often no alternative, the only option would be to force one of the parents to give up working and perhaps even his/her career to look after the children. And in many cases, parents who have bills to pay can't afford to give up work. The yearly $1200 TAXED benefit will not help these people when daycare costs are often more than $500/month.

What you are saying is so wrong in my opinion. Most daycares require ECEs. Early Childhood Educators have to go to school for at least two to three years and complete courses from child psychology to nutrition. In most daycares a child's day is very structured and optimized to meet children's needs (social and developmental.) These early years are critical in a child's development and ECEs are there to help make as much of a positive impact as possible. I have a good friend who is an ECE and she works very hard each day. ECEs are often underpaid compared to other professions and will not be helped by the Conservative's new daycare policies. And by the way, I'm pretty sure she would be pretty disgusted hearing that she is being compared to a babysitter. And yes I truly believe parents care what kind of environment their kids are in at a very critical age and about the learning they receive.

My mistake, I should have reread what I had typed. I meant to say media been barred from solders's return from overseas. We hear the names now because we haven't had many soldeirs fall as of yet but in the future if casualities mount (which I hope does not happen) we may see it go the US route in which you many only hear about names in the local meda (local in where the soldier is from) or from digging into news sites for the lists such as I believe CNN does. The average Canadian won't be checking out the websites for this. Some of these families were upset at the non-lowering of the flags at half-mast and in regards to the fallensoldier's return home, this quote from this articleFallen soldier's father criticizes Harper

Agree? First, it may be tradition but like any bad tradition or any bad law, it should be changed. Say it has been a tradition to throw eggs for a day at any new neighbours. Does this mean it's ok to continue to do it just because it's tradition? No. The Conservatives, after pushing improvement in govt. ethics and accountibility during the election, could have make a great start in showing that they were serious by saying no to crossovers (unlike they were willing to go to the polls in a by-election) and create a bill outlawing crossing the floor. Because let's face it. Many people are not just voting for the person but for the party and the policies of that party. Therefore, it's akin to betrayal to the constituents when these people cross the floor. It was wrong when Belinda did it but it was worse when Emerson did it shortly after the end of an election. Second, the flag at half mast thing is just part of it. The bigger part is the media banning at these soldier's funerals. The danger is that these soldiers will have died for their country virtually nameless to the rest of us Canadians. When the media covers a fallen soldier's return, people across Canada know who these soldiers are (such as their names) and appreciate their sacrifice much more. And by not covering their return, the Canadian public risk desenitizing themselves to what is going on and the soldiers becomes a number, almost unreal...a name is real and tangible in contrast. Many argue that the military families themselves would rather not have the media cover the fallen's return but they don't mention that there are also other military families who would like to see the media's coverage and are upset with the Conservative's policy. I wouldn't want to vote in any government who considers $1 billion dollars in taxpayers' (and therefore mine as well) money as pennies. Such a government would be wasteful in the extreme. And the 100 million sponsorship scandal brought down the Liberal govt., so I wouldn't call $1 billion dollars just pennies to the government. And in regards to the softwood deal, Canada won just about every ruling in regards to the softwood lumber conflict and what the Americans did by charging those penalties was plain wrong. Should we allow them to benefit from doing the wrong thing. There are a couple of things that should be considered. First, it's the principle...should we be penalized for going through the right procedures and protocols and being in the right which even the courts admitted Canada was in. Second, I'm concerned this could start a precedent. Who will be the next American interest group that will see this as a way to grab some extra money and claim unfair subsidies from Canada. So I can't say I agree with you.