Concerned

Oh dear, that's the kind of system I want! There truly is a big disparity between services among provinces then....from healthcare to this! Well its nice that you guys at least have a system. And Betsy, your comments that at home day care is better than institutionalized daycare, all valid arguments. But for some families its a matter of survival. Parents living in Vancouver with its high priced real estate largely driven by huge equity/off shore money coming here through the eighties, face having to have two incomes or not owning a home. Personally, I am a career woman and choose to work regardless of the daycare situation, or home prices, and as far as I am concerned that is a warranted choice that should be supported by my government, even if it just means having approriate taxes writeoffs to accomodate for adequate daycare. When I had my first two boys 9 and 8 years ago, there were NO daycare choices that suited a full time working mom in my area. My choice was to hire a nanny. She was untrained by any institution in Canada, and in fact was from the Phillipines and barely spoke English. By the time my kids reached the age of 3, I had to enroll them into Montessori preschool in order for them to have the early childhood education I felt that their brilliant little minds required. That meant an additional $750 per month for 2.5 hours per day. Couldn't get rid of the nanny because I needed her for drop off and pick up since the school hours were in the middle of the day. With daycare costs of over $2800 per month, you might want to wonder how most women here do it. Granted my kids got better care because I spent the money, but funny that it had to come out of my disposable income when no other choices were available. Now in smaller towns I don't wonder that the daycare facilities that are available are not even remotely full. That is because there are many stay at home moms and easier to find one if you happen to be a working mom needing some help. In my neighbourhood, and amongst ALL of my friends I know not ONE stay at home mom. So my point exactly, is why would mom's in smaller towns who have easy access to inexpensive childcare and/or can also easily stay at home with their kids (and according to you, Betsy should be ).....get $100 per month, and in big cities like Vancouver where women are 1. choosing to go to work and 2. having no choice but to go to work, get the same sort of benefit ?? (in fact less because its taxable and we in the city are likely to be in a higher tax bracket) This is not an equitable system as far as I am concerned. And...oh Spike 22..... Women who are professionals who choose careers often pay more in taxes and therefore contribute to the economy, they are not a drag on the economy, and a little bit of these taxes that we pay being allocated to some sort of daycare or at least full daycare writeoff would be appropriate. I pay more in taxes annually than an average Canadian family (dual income) earns in wages. That is not including the taxes my company pays. I also employ 8 staff members and support their wages and their taxes and therefore am increasing the Canadian tax base. And you're saying I should stay at home?? I have normal healthy kids who are doing very well at school and have done a good job raising them with the help of my expensive daycare, and that is the program I will be sticking with. I just think that not getting the full writeoff is a bit of a piss off when the much of the rest of Canada is getting an allowance they may or may not even need. So in your case money rules. How I long for the good old days in the 1950's and 60's when the mother raised the children not strangers. Fortunately your family sounds like they are doing well thanks to expensive daycare - by all accounts you can easily afford it. Are you not the least bit guilty letting someone else do your and your significant others work raising the family? My wife and I sacrificed until all the kids were in school full time until we both resumed our regular work routines - if there is a will there is a way unfortunmately families come last nowdays and the almighty buck rules. And I bet you it was your wife who stayed home ! Yes, I can afford it and that was my good fortune. I spent my time at my career as that was my passion, not doing dishes and laundry. It worked out for the better financially....that however does not mean that somebody else is raising my family. It is possible to have outside help and still be a good mom/parent....foreign concept to you maybe but I have MANY friends that do it, and their kids are outstanding. I dare to compare my children to those raised by their moms, not all moms are perfect child raisers either. And no, I do not feel guilty at all, in fact my third baby will be raised the same way...my family does not come last, they come first honey. Its just a different way of dealing with things. August, studio space is a writeoff. Unfortunately, you have to have a revenue to write it off against !!

Oh dear, that's the kind of system I want! There truly is a big disparity between services among provinces then....from healthcare to this! Well its nice that you guys at least have a system. And Betsy, your comments that at home day care is better than institutionalized daycare, all valid arguments. But for some families its a matter of survival. Parents living in Vancouver with its high priced real estate largely driven by huge equity/off shore money coming here through the eighties, face having to have two incomes or not owning a home. Personally, I am a career woman and choose to work regardless of the daycare situation, or home prices, and as far as I am concerned that is a warranted choice that should be supported by my government, even if it just means having approriate taxes writeoffs to accomodate for adequate daycare. When I had my first two boys 9 and 8 years ago, there were NO daycare choices that suited a full time working mom in my area. My choice was to hire a nanny. She was untrained by any institution in Canada, and in fact was from the Phillipines and barely spoke English. By the time my kids reached the age of 3, I had to enroll them into Montessori preschool in order for them to have the early childhood education I felt that their brilliant little minds required. That meant an additional $750 per month for 2.5 hours per day. Couldn't get rid of the nanny because I needed her for drop off and pick up since the school hours were in the middle of the day. With daycare costs of over $2800 per month, you might want to wonder how most women here do it. Granted my kids got better care because I spent the money, but funny that it had to come out of my disposable income when no other choices were available. Now in smaller towns I don't wonder that the daycare facilities that are available are not even remotely full. That is because there are many stay at home moms and easier to find one if you happen to be a working mom needing some help. In my neighbourhood, and amongst ALL of my friends I know not ONE stay at home mom. So my point exactly, is why would mom's in smaller towns who have easy access to inexpensive childcare and/or can also easily stay at home with their kids (and according to you, Betsy should be ).....get $100 per month, and in big cities like Vancouver where women are 1. choosing to go to work and 2. having no choice but to go to work, get the same sort of benefit ?? (in fact less because its taxable and we in the city are likely to be in a higher tax bracket) This is not an equitable system as far as I am concerned. And...oh Spike 22..... Women who are professionals who choose careers often pay more in taxes and therefore contribute to the economy, they are not a drag on the economy, and a little bit of these taxes that we pay being allocated to some sort of daycare or at least full daycare writeoff would be appropriate. I pay more in taxes annually than an average Canadian family (dual income) earns in wages. That is not including the taxes my company pays. I also employ 8 staff members and support their wages and their taxes and therefore am increasing the Canadian tax base. And you're saying I should stay at home?? I have normal healthy kids who are doing very well at school and have done a good job raising them with the help of my expensive daycare, and that is the program I will be sticking with. I just think that not getting the full writeoff is a bit of a piss off when the much of the rest of Canada is getting an allowance they may or may not even need.

The US gets a huge return on training and educating its military recruits, and the recruits do not have to go to war for the US to capitalize on this return. The US economy simply does better with a well educated public, and the recruits are typically from lower income families who cannot otherwise afford the education, and who would be a lag in the social system without the training. So the argument that they have to go to war in order for the US to get a return on its investment in them is non-sensical.

The war was undeniably illegal -- both under the laws of the USA and "international law" (which I give less respect to). Further, the use of National Guard and reserve troops in the war is also illegal -- anyone in the national guard who signed up under the pretense of homeland defence has a very strong case against the government. I am no pro-Iraq war hawk and I will leave the question of the legality for a minute. But let's get back to Hinzman and the soldiers there. What should we do about it? Would you, YankAbroad, someone who shares an agreement with me about the ridiculousness of bloated huge government authoritarian policies, support paying to keep this guy appealing the system? The question of legality of the war in this case is irrellevant.....under the act he cannot seek refugee status which was the decision: (the evidence regarding legality of the war was not heard as it is pointless in this case).... 97. (1) A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country or countries of nationality or, if they do not have a country of nationality, their country of former habitual residence, would subject them personally (a) to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture; or to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if (i) the person is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country, (ii) the risk would be faced by the person in every part of that country and is not faced generally by other individuals in or from that country, (iii) the risk is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards, and (iv) the risk is not caused by the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care. I think Canada would really rather stay out of this one and unless he makes a stronger argument covered under the act, the issues that you are discussing here will not be heard. I think it would be great if they were heard, including the concept of the legality of the war. However this would leave Canada in the awkward position of hearing an awful lot of claims for refugee status everytime the US goes to war ! We know how frequent that will be. But compare this case to some of the other people living in this country under refugee claims. I don't think Canada would do that badly accepting a few trained military staff from the US...probably good for the labour pool.

Where in God's name do you get you information from? Are you insane? Who was quietly arrested, what dark side of the F.B.I. sure if they're against me, they're all dark-sided but what the hell? Please don't tell me you represent a majority of Canadians in these conspiracy theories? I live a nice, quiet comfortable life in the U.S. and the crap you're talking about isn't even covered by our tabloids. It's like me saying the canadians resurrected Godzilla and are storming the beaches of Normandy in a time machine to overthrow Ghandi. I know very little of your PM, but apparently you know even less of our government. Our president has to walk on eggshells because the press is constantly sticking their cameras up his ass and you think he's running off with trillions of dollars? Wow. I want to know your sources and if I'm wrong on this one, Save me a spot in Canada, or Guatemala for that matter. Hey hey there Elvis, how do you know this guy's Canadian?? You can laugh a little louder after you read this: http://www.nesara.us/pages/home.html I don't think he's Canadian honey. He's got to be one of yours.

Probably because he (Harper) did it for the good of the country and Vancouver, which the board of trade would appreciate, plus the media isn't reporting on why its good for the country. I'm unhappy that they (Harper) did it, but now its done it should be explained better. Mind you, I do know that a lot of what the CPC does put out or say isn't alwahys reported by the media, they usually only choose to report negative stuff. It also seems there is a lot of inconsistency here, no one seemed to be too upset when Scott Brison and Belinda S. crossed the floor (and others) for a cabinet position, self serving moves at best. There was no outrage, no protests, (except for conservatives) no call for Belinda to resign and stand in a byelection - and Harper never suggested that she should -- and neither did Jack Layton. And NO ONE wrote to Bernard Shapiro. Well the big difference with Belinda was that her riding was historically liberal. The CPC's only won the riding because the voters wanted HER. When she crossed the floor the voters were not upset about it as they were traditionally liberal. Vancouver Kingsway was not CPC riding. In fact, the riding right beside it to the east is traditionally NDP.

Yuuuuuck. I suppose you drink Budweiser too (being the pro-American that you are ) ??? BELCH. Try Granville Island Brew..... a great BC beer.

The story is way over blown. The words Gretsky and dirt just do not fit that well together. The press simply got tired of Emmerson and Islam and had nothing better to do. I take The Wayner at his word. I can't think of anyone in public life whose word I'd believe moreso than his. The Wayner's word trumps a new jersey cops anyday and is gold until proven otherwise. Hey, maybe its just a bit of anti-Canadianism. After all we did kick their butts in the last Olympics. And we pretty much embarassed their juniors here in Vancouver....Funny this "ring" has been around for over 5 years, but suddenly it is an issue just before Torino.

Thanks for pointing out the humour in this grave situation Hasan, but really, I'm concerned for your health ! Will we ever see you here again ?? You are a brave man. I too am afraid for you. how DARE you speak out against a belief. better hide, friend...better hide. You know they're already after you...great satan!!!! seriously though...we are on the verge oif living in fear. reminds me of germany circa 1942....never speak out publically against..... islam is so fucked up You know I hate to agree with a comment like this but my head spins with the idea that any religious faction could counter those who do not believe with violent action. What's the difference between burning a national flag and creating a tasteless cartoon? One should be sensored but the other is ok. Domination by fear is exactly what this is. There are many muslims who are peaceful and do not agree with the violence promoted by the extremists. The trouble is their voice is just a squeek next to those guys with the bombs. The idea of censorship in this situation is ridiculous as who will be the judge of the material being censored? The extremists ? Peaceful muslims? Western journalists? Government officials? Which government? Who makes the call ?? If anything western nations should openly encourage self-censorship for the benifit of humanity. The respect for islam extremists is not deserved, however in the interest of peace, we could all just shut up about it knowing that there is no winner here.

Melanie: I can't believe you are apologizing for any comment here, you had a valid point. The fact is that women still do bear the brunt of the responsibility in the household whether they work or do not work (your exasperated comments noted), which has historically been one of the reasons why women do not get as far ahead in their careers as their male colleagues, and do not command the same salary levels as their husbands do. I agree with the comment that the CPC plan denotes choice, stay at home or not stay at home. However that does not address the problem that many parents may want to stay at home but cannot. Particularly people living in larger cities like Toronto or Vancouver where the price of real estate is extraordinarily high, either there are two working parents or they simply do not own a home. So distributing these cheques evenly among families who are able to afford a healthy lifestyle under one salary because they are living in less expensive areas, does not really represent fair distribution. The bulk of the daycare money should be distributed to the areas that have the highest number of families with two working parents. Betsy: There is much evidence supporting the fact that children who attend early daycare are better socialized and do better at school than children raised by stay at home parents. My two children are excellent examples. They are well socialized (my oldest consistently wins citizenship awards at school), and they are among the brightest in their classes. Mind you, I paid a very high price for expert daycare, a luxury that many women could not afford. Not all daycare situations are ideal, but not all stay at home parents are good at educating/raising their children either. A better daycare system means more qualified people helping bring up our children. There are those women who choose to go to work and those that have to, but certainly both are deserving to have their children well looked after. And Melanie, you know those banks and other business where women provide the bulk of the low priced labour....ya they would still exist. But we would be paying twice as much for the services if men were "manning" those positions. They won't work for 10-15 bucks an hour.

The story is way over blown. The words Gretsky and dirt just do not fit that well together. The press simply got tired of Emmerson and Islam and had nothing better to do.

Thanks for pointing out the humour in this grave situation Hasan, but really, I'm concerned for your health ! Will we ever see you here again ?? You are a brave man.

There's land east of Calgary? Most of that part of the world is dead to me now. So they say... Here is the response I got from my service for organic delivery in the "other" part of the world: I have a few links listed below for your friends to take a look at. I can't vouch for these companies personally, as I have no experience with them. However, at least as far as the produce boxes are concerned, Front Door Organics seems to be the closest match to the kind of service SPUD offers. Hope these help! For Toronto: http://www.frontdoororganics.com/ http://www.organicsdelivered.com/ http://www.mywowbox.com/welcome.asp http://www.greenearthorganics.com/ Montreal is somewhat trickier. I wasn't able to find any listings for organic home delivery in the Montreal area online. I'd be very surprised if there weren't any, but they don't seem to have an obvious web presence. Cheers, Devin Kettle SPUD Customer Service Hey Concerned, Thanks for the info. I haven't investigated it yet for Montreal but when I do (probably this weekend...earlies Friday) i will post the link here... I do appreciate you effort into the process and I am quite interested into finding out more about this... Well I can't speak for the service in the rest of the country but for a family of four here in BC, its just awesome. I get to poo poo all the crap they sell at the grocery store. The stuff they deliver is so much fuller in flavour, and you get a great variety of foods that you wouldn't otherwise have purchased. They are big about delivering "whats in season", so you do have to get out of the habit of eating snow peas in winter, however once you get used to cooking a few dishes that aren't normally on your personal menu, you gain the benefit of eating much fresher produce. If you find you get stuff that you don't know how to cook, I find that about 3 minutes of research on the internet will get me a multitude of excellent recipies. If anybody else out there is open minded to try it, tell all your friends, that is how the price of this stuff will come down, and suppliers will continue to respond to consumer demand for healthier foods.

There's land east of Calgary? Most of that part of the world is dead to me now. So they say... Here is the response I got from my service for organic delivery in the "other" part of the world: I have a few links listed below for your friends to take a look at. I can't vouch for these companies personally, as I have no experience with them. However, at least as far as the produce boxes are concerned, Front Door Organics seems to be the closest match to the kind of service SPUD offers. Hope these help! For Toronto: http://www.frontdoororganics.com/ http://www.organicsdelivered.com/ http://www.mywowbox.com/welcome.asp http://www.greenearthorganics.com/ Montreal is somewhat trickier. I wasn't able to find any listings for organic home delivery in the Montreal area online. I'd be very surprised if there weren't any, but they don't seem to have an obvious web presence. Cheers, Devin Kettle SPUD Customer Service

Jeez, us folks without kids have to pay school taxes and now welfare for you people with kids?! I'm outraged! Outraged! As per Globe and Mail article: The growing problem of shrinking population By DOUG SAUNDERS, Saturday, October 8, 2005, Page A1 France pays its citizens $1400 per month if they are to have a 3rd child. Shrinking populations are a concern in all first world nations. It is estimated that without immigration and increased incentives for people to have bigger families, that our economies will not sustain themselves into the future. Our future elderly are at risk as there may not be enough population to cover the volume of baby-boomers entering the retirement phase, and who require increased health care. France is one of those countries that feel that "raising there own" is better than aggressive immigration policies. So for all you CPC WASP's that are worried about 'minorities at polling stations' perhaps you should be lobbying for this kind of child support. ha ha !! Sure, and France is a depressed economy, lets follow their example and we can all be poor. I do like slowing immigration... maybe if we stopped killing our children with abortions we'd have an sustainable birth rate. I have 2002 stats, there were 105,000 abortions, and 329,000 babies born. That means 25% of babies are aborted in Canada. 51% of whom are women in their 20's, the lowest income group in the population. From Status of women Canada, 2005: Poverty is still very much a women's issue. While there have been improvements in the past decade or so, women are still more likely than men to be living in low income. But statistics on low income do not tell the full story of women's poverty. While governments and advocacy groups redouble their efforts to "make poverty history", the United Nations has suggested that poverty cannot be eradicated unless we adopt a more comprehensive view of poverty - one that recognizes poverty is more than a shortage of income. As the United Nations describes it, poverty is "the denial of opportunities and choices most basic to human development - to lead a long, healthy, creative life and to enjoy a decent standard of living, freedom, dignity, self-esteem, and the respect of others." 1 The social exclusion many women face as a result of gender inequalities is detrimental not only to women themselves, but to their families and their communities. Successful anti-poverty strategies must deal with issues related to women's low status and lack of empowerment.2 Lack of access to education or affordable housing, for example, may mean women cannot participate as full and equal members of society. Women's economic inequality and lack of income may restrict their ability to leave violent domestic situations and to protect themselves and their children from abuse and physical harm. Living in poverty may actually result in poor health and shortened life expectancy.

But who says he's going to be a criminal just because he's been born to that kind of circumstances? A good number of success stories actually started on those dire backgrounds. Are you saying that all children born to a single mom, into poverty, with no father around, no social net, will end up criminals...therefore we ought to slaughter them before they're even born? I'm saying that the best judge of whether or not the child will be born into the right set of circumstances, and whether or not the parents are emotionally able to deal with that child, is the parents, and in particular the mother. The right to choose should be left to the individuals who are directly responsible for that child.

Jeez, us folks without kids have to pay school taxes and now welfare for you people with kids?! I'm outraged! Outraged! As per Globe and Mail article: The growing problem of shrinking population By DOUG SAUNDERS, Saturday, October 8, 2005, Page A1 France pays its citizens $1400 per month if they are to have a 3rd child. Shrinking populations are a concern in all first world nations. It is estimated that without immigration and increased incentives for people to have bigger families, that our economies will not sustain themselves into the future. Our future elderly are at risk as there may not be enough population to cover the volume of baby-boomers entering the retirement phase, and who require increased health care. France is one of those countries that feel that "raising there own" is better than aggressive immigration policies. So for all you CPC WASP's that are worried about 'minorities at polling stations' perhaps you should be lobbying for this kind of child support. ha ha !!

We appreciate your input here, and your post illistrates what many of us here have been discussing...that American's are mislead and misinformed and lack general understanding of what is actually going on abroad. Your government does its best to make you feel that everything is warm and cozy in the name of national pride....criticism of your government's foreign policy by other nations can only be incorrect as the actions that your governments have taken abroad are completely justified. This is what the American people have been lead to believe.

Where do you order this stuff, I'm actually interested? Nothing like a little advertising plug for your local organic folks. The one I use is Small Potatoes, but I'm not sure if they have a calgary distribution center. They are www.spud.ca . If you emailed them from the contact us page, they are very good at getting back to you and probably could recommend a service in your area if they are not already there. Thanks! Apparently they deliver on Thursdays, I'm going to order some stuff up. They don't deliver in Montreal. Apparently they also don't deliver east of Calgary. Well if Montrealer's diets are anything like Torontonians, then I wouldn't doubt you couldn't get organic food there !! Do you guys even know what a vegetable is ??

I'd really liek to see the evidence that shows kids who aren't spanked are more likely to commit crimes. I'd be far more willing to bet that kids who get hit by their parents are more likely to grow up to see physical violence as an acceptable solution to their problems. And how do we know that this child did not learn hitting her parents from the parents? If dad is a spanker perhaps she learned it from him ? As a parent of two very boyish boys, I have tried everything, spanking among disciplinary action I have resorted to when ultimately frustrated and usually when I'm on the higher stress side and have decided that I'm just not sure what else to do .... My best friend has two kids same age as mine and is vehemently opposed to spanking....she says its a form of parental temper tantrum. Having used her methods of discipline and also the spanking method I would say in the long run her methods are far more productive. They require more patience. When I can actually stick to a program of discipline that does not rely on violence, I see that the results are better and longer lasting. As far as the use of force is concerned, the observations I have of my children are that if I use it, they use it. If I am to spank them and show them the example of control by force, they tend to follow this example in their behaviour towards each other.

A child raised poorly is still able to make something of their life eventually, possibly. A child dead can't have a life at all ever. Why should I pay for other people's irresponsibility? I already do enough of that. The woman could have got contraceptives, could have used them, she didn't. No sympathy for the woman, sorry. The kid is in a disadvantaged situation I agree. But no social program is going to change the irresponsible nature of the mother. Some of the richest people in the world are terrible parents and raise terrible children. Look at Paris Hilton or those Gotti kids if you want some in your face examples. Lack of money or social assistance isn't making kids commit crime. It's bad parents. Whine about welfare all you want, at the end of the day bad parents won't be changed. I know lots of people that grew up poor and now are people of great character and integrity. Stop blaming our countries welfare system and just admit these irresponsible parents are bad parents too! It is not all simple economics and simple contraceptives. As pointed out by sparhawk on another thread ... " Financial well being and emotional well being are intimately connected and cannot be seperated. Very few people have an abortion for purely monetary reasons (although that may be the reason they speak aload). The real reason is they do not emotionally able to cope with the child".... OF course there are people who are poor that have become great characters. In all likelihood though, they were brought up by parents (or at least one parent) who were able to support them emotionally, and were strong enough in character themselves to properly raise a child in less than an ideal situation. The problem is that the most likely person to become a detriment to society is the person that grew up in poverty, did not have an appropriate social support system, and ultimately, yes, had bad parents. So why are you so insistent that all these bad parents who (according to you) make bad and irresponsible choices about their birth control, bring children into society?? If these so-called bad parents get themselves into the situation of being pregnant, wrongly or rightly, why should they be forced to raise a child? Obviously you do not want to help support that child and do not believe that our society in general has any responsibility towards that child? Your arguments seem very self-righteous to me.

Where do you order this stuff, I'm actually interested? Nothing like a little advertising plug for your local organic folks. The one I use is Small Potatoes, but I'm not sure if they have a calgary distribution center. They are www.spud.ca . If you emailed them from the contact us page, they are very good at getting back to you and probably could recommend a service in your area if they are not already there.

Even just properly labelling what the specifically food ate and what medications it was given would be extremely helpful to consumers wanting to make informed choices.

You do not need to pay triple for your food to get a better quality food. I buy my vegetables from an organic delivery service and pay roughly what I would have paid at Safeway. People need to vote for quality food production by supporting quality food growers and producers with their consumer dollars. As more people demand their products to be organic, grain fed, hormone free, by purchasing those products, the prices will come down dramatically.

I really don't think I've missed the point. Hold people accountable for their actions. Don't have sex if you can't afford reliable contraception or a baby. End of story. If you choose to have sex with everyone you meet, you need to appreciate the possible consequences of your actions. With privledges come responsibility. Financial excuses cannot justify murder. I don't understand how Canadians believe that the government should hold their hand and raise their children for them. It just further encourages this behaviour. So its either raise my kids or I'll kill 'em. Sounds like extortion by the feminist movement to me. Hang on Geoffrey. It is the child is who is at stake here. The mother who has an unwanted child, or a child who she cannot properly raise, is only hurting the child. It is not the child's fault that she didn't have or use the proper birth control methods (if that is truly why the unwanted pregnancy occurred). As you have stated, you do not want to financially support this child through social support programs. Yet you want the woman to have this child??? You do not want the woman to end the pregnancy for financial reasons, but you do not believe the community should support her or the child financially ? Why is that, because it might be coming out of your precious pocket??????