Renegade

If my parents are destitute, sure I'd take them in. But for the most part I expect seniors should save for thieir own retirement. I will. I'm not expecting either the government nor my kids to look after me. Are you?

We'll see I guess. As long as just anyone who can procreate at will can become a parent, we then always have child poverty, child abuse, and kids being brought up in unhealthy environments.

Guest workers are not as farfetched as some would believe. A G&M article appeared today on that subject: Unless you have a subscription you wont get access to the full article: link

Depends upon how big the mistake is. Some mistakes there is no recovering from. How about if they just assualted a child just one time. Forgive and forget? Good idea. Wish I thought of it. How do you kow she was a good parent? Maybe an assessesment would have shown her emotional instablilty and prevented her from having kids to begin with.

If you talk to many Albertans, they would say that their voice is not being heard. Prior to Harper, the last western Prime Minister, was Kim Campbell (for all of 3 weeks?). Show Alberta, some evidence that their interest are being represented and they are better off in Confederation than out of it. Yes, I have no doubt that all regions are represented. The fact that Alberta's soldiers are ordered around in the same way as Quebecs, hardly addresses the issue that Alberta feels shortchanged in Confederation. Yes, you keep saying this but yet have not addressed why you think so. Am I part owner of your house? If not why not, afterall everything belongs to everbody right?

Maybe they don't want one. Maybe they only want a voice in what affect their province. Why? On a global scale does Canada think it owns a share of Saudia Arabia's oil? So why does Quebec think it would have a claim on some share of Alberta oil? It's not that I'm completely disagreeing with you, but I'd like to understand your reasoning. True, but what happens when one or two provinces don't feel that their interest are adequately addresses or that they are getting a fair shake? You're going to have a tough time convincing many Albertans or Ontarions that the soldiers from the rest of Canada are interveneing in Afganistan mostly for Ontario's or Alberta's benefit.

Your correct it is not as simple as people make it out to be. However, what makes you believe that in order to compete internationaly Canada needs to "make sure that all Canadians have an opportunity to prosper". This is simply unproven. There are many nations smaller than Canada who thrive internationally. It is equally valid to say that some provinces, freed of the shackles of having to support unproductive provinces, could compete better on the world stage. Equalization is akin to welfare for poorer provinces, and that woudl be fine if it was a temporary situation which turned a equlization recipient into a equalization contributor. However, history has shown that for the most part this is not true. The reciepients end up being long term financial drains and perpetuates an attitude of entitlement.

Disagree with what? How does that make it any different than welfare? I suppose its not, it just sounds better. Mebbe people should have to pay into it witha separate tax like in the U.S. OH no, not like the U.S....people with very low incomes still get it tho. That was my point. Its really not any different than welfare with a different name when you look at it. If it looks like welfare, smells like welfare, and feels like welfare, why not just call it welfare and administer it the same way. In the US people pay into Social Security. The analogy in Canada is CPP, which we do pay into.

Disagree with what? How does that make it any different than welfare?

I agree with the concept that there needs to be a way to resolve conflicts between rights, so no argument there. The way I see it the rights are fundamental to us as beings, society acknowledges those rights and agrees to protect them in the Charter of Rights, our justice system mediates between rights conflicts, and our law enforcement upholds our rights. Again no disagreement here. I agree again. I don't beleive that property rights always take precedence, however in the absence of a rights conflict property rights must be upheld. In the situation we were discussing above I didn't see a rights confilct, perhaps you can elaborate where you saw one.

Absolutely! It's a job requirement. Should a modeling agency be able to discrimminate againsty ugly people? You bet. Appearance is a job requrement.

I guess my point is if parents expect a taxpayer support for parenting, they should equally expect that taxpayer imposes rules on parenting. Now I am fine if people don't think the government and its funding arm don't intervene in parenting, but then stop blaming the government for parental responsibiltites. If we really want to make a difference in issues like child poverty, child abuse, child education, then it requires more tolatarian control because some parents simply are not up to it. Parents, if you don't want the state to have a say in your choices, stop blaming the government for issues which are really your problem. No I don't agree with mothers raising their children in jail. I would say that in almost all cases, for babies they bear while incarcerated it is a demonstration of their unsuitability as a parent. You say that they are better off temporarily in foster care, I say they are better off permanantly in adoptive care. Who the hell knows? Maybe I'm an unfit parent. I don't hold myself up to a different standard than I propose for others. I would not object if someone did a review and assessed my ability to parent and then determined if I could have a child. I would expect the same for all potential parents.

So is the money his or does it rightfully belong with the soldiers? Make up your mind. It's the same money going around. So what, what does it matter? Are you interested in the use of the money or publicity? So what? If it is more economically viable for them to stay home, they should. It seems stupid to subsidize a parent by several thousand per child, just so they can earn less than that working. If they can earn more than what the (unsubsidized) childcare cost, then they can afford to work. Actually its lose-lose. The parent gets incented to spend time away from their children they lose out on part of the parenting experience they would otherwise have had, the children lose in reduced contact with the parent, and the taxpayer loses in that it is forced to subsidize all of this. BTW, in your scheme above, there is no wealth being created, the net amount of money stays the same, therefore the amount which is spent in the economy is the same, its just different people who do the spending. It seems that your biggest issue is that it is called a childcare plan. If they called it parent incentive would that make you happier? BTW, you seem to be blissfully unaware the actual portion which taxpayers foot of the childcare cost.

I am a single parent myself. Personally where I hold views which impact more than just myself I make a concious effort to be objective and put aside self-interest. I know this is not always possible but that is what I would aim for. True the techology doesn't yet exist to implement this, but I'm confident that in time it will be possible to enforce such a system. More than likely it will be a enforced contraception system. You may not agree, but as you've admitted your views are colured by you lack of objectivity.

Probably some of both are needed.

Drea, given your pride you have expressed, I have no doubt that you are a wonderful parent and provided a great upbringing for your child. The fact is we don't ever know. But is it irresponsible to consider risk factors which would make someone a bad parent? A child-molester **may** turn out to be a good parent. Do we know for sure? No. Do we think the risk is to high to chance it? Definately!!! If you can see that there are certain factors which you would recognize in a parent which may put the child at risk, why is it such a difficult extention for you to see, that these are criteria which we can use to determine suitability as a parent. Based upon your responses I would conclude that based upon your personal experience as a mother, this issue would touch too close to home and you are not looking at the issue objectively.

Neither Nocrap nor myself said the families would do the donating. But that the gov't should take the money it's allocated for families and spend it on the military. Yes I know neither of you said that. But my point is, when YOU have the power to allocate the money to the military, YOU aren't going to do it, yet you are all for the government doing what you yourself would not when given the choice. Why the double standard?

I am not suggesting that support be provided in the caller's native language, and I quite agree that the onus is on a non-English or French speaker to learn the language of the home country. I have no doubt that the caller is expecting to talk to an English call-center. I am simply suggesting that since the company selling the service makes it the only requirement of the customer that they have the money, and not specific technical skills or language skills, that call center operators should be more tolerant or find another line of work.

Customers do not have a choice in the channel they use to contact you. There is an expectation on clear verbal communication for you as a Call Center operator, you can't expect the same level for customers. I can and do. How do you expect me to support you properly when you : A) cannot pronounce things correctly don't know what your talking about (and give me crap when MY answer is not good enough for you) Remember you CALLED ME for support. So be clear on the issue and your words. It is not about the only channel they can use to contact you. I am talking about speaking clear and consice. If I cannot understand you, how do you expect me to support you. And vice versa. Think about it. Try it, mumble your ass off the next time you call in for some support. See how far that gets. Frustration on both sides will be had. This is comming from a person who has 4 years in a call center environment working on several contracts. I know what I am talking about here. Most of us in call centers are on a time restraint, usually it is an agreement between the call center and the client (like and ISP) We have service levels agreements to adhear to. I make it a point to be clear to my customers. Most of them are clear with me, and things flow smoothly. Issue gets resolved faster when both parties comminicate properly. Ok let's say the customer doesn't speak english as a first language, how do you expect him/her to get support? I would bet the ISP doesn't make it a requirement for their customer to have english as a first language before they sell them the product.

So then it is safe to say that you do have some standards of what a fit parent is and you don't consider that just anyone can be a fit parent? Why not just tell us your standards of what a 'fit' parent is? I'm not up to "setting standards" -- I'm obviously an unfit parent -- because I was a single mother back in 1993, I'm not "up to par" according to some (you) who would have gleefully stolen my son from me. It would seem that we agree that there are some parents who are fit and that some who are unfit. We both agree that children should be taken away from unfit parents. The only real difference between our positions is we haven't agreed on what constitutes a fit parent. Even though you say you are not up to "setting standards" you clearly have already some standards (at least in your mind) on what constitutes a fit parent. Clearly a proven chlid molestor is not. As to whether you are up to par, or would have been up to par at the time you had your son. I have no idea. I don't know the details of your circumstance so I have no context to say that you would have been an unfit parent. You can use retoric like "gleefully stolen" if you prefer but it is really out of context and inappropriate. What motiviation would I have to take away your child if I truly felt you could provide the right environment to raise the child? As to what standards I woudl set, I have not given it a lot of thought but here are some I would likely factor in: 1. Maturity (Are they emotionally capable of parenting) 2. Child's wellbeing (Are they likely to physically or mentally abuse the child or introduce them to such an environment) 3. Support Structure ( Do they have fiinancial, family, and other support mechanisms necessary to provide for the child) 4. Do they have impairments (drug addictions, mental disease, etc) which woudl substantially impact them from parenting. 5. Do they have a successful record of parenting? (ie how did other kids they parented turn out?) I'm sure there are others, but these are just some factors which I think ought to be considered.

The whole notion of earning EI is nonsense. EI is insurance. As soon as you are part of the scheme you are entitled to insurance, regardless if you have contributed for 1 day or 40 years. (OK, not quite 1 day because of the minimium period) Conversely, if you are not legimately unemplolyed, you are not entitled to one penny, regardless if you have contributed for 40 years.

Customers do not have a choice in the channel they use to contact you. There is an expectation on clear verbal communication for you as a Call Center operator, you can't expect the same level for customers.

You should complain. Not because you are racist but because clear communication is a fundamental requirement for a call center. Regardless of the race of the operator, the company operating the call-center is expected to man it with competent staff who can communicate clearly with their customers. If you don't complain, how are they going to know?

So then it is safe to say that you do have some standards of what a fit parent is and you don't consider that just anyone can be a fit parent?

Well, CPP is based on employee/employer contributions, therefore lazy people who don't work, won't receive it will they ! Old age pension is a different matter, but if we eliminate that then there should be a drop in taxes to compensate, or maybe people should be required to pay into that too ? If you look at the rate of return, CPP is a poor investment. CPP was great for those who retired in the earlier years of the program because they had low levels of contribution yet collected far more than they contributed upon retirement. The demographics have changed all that. The contribution rates have been jacked up and as a result contributors today would be better off if the scheme was collapsed and their premiums returned (with interest). A much better scheme would be if the employer & employeee contributions were mandatory, but invested in the fund of your choice (kind of a forced RRSP). OAS is nothing but a disguised welfare scheme. In my view it should be collapsed into the welfare program to avoid the duplication of overhead, or eliminated altogether.