wellandboy

Chuck Guite was hand picked to run the program and reported directly to the PMO. The connection to Mulroney is tenuous at best as he was just another civil servant at the time. Nice try a rewriting history.

To all reasonable posters, I apologize. However, when others engage in unwarranted and aggressive condescensions of individuals core beliefs, I tend to react. Anyway, back to daycare. I like the Conservative plan and have a huge aversion to government run day cares. What is a legitimate concern are the single parents low income parents, who have limited means to begin with to obtain reasonable day care. An additional tax cut would be cost effective as it directly benefits the individual(s), without a huge investment in bricks, mortar and administration like the Lib/NDP plan.

You say freedom of choice is silly. Does that include a woman's right to choose, re- abortions or is choice only available to those who subscribe to your particular political philosophy?

There is nothing sleazy, that as Prime Minister and the de facto head of the Liberal Party of Canada, Paul Martin has not done the right thing and offered to pay back the money stolen from Canadians. Not even the slightest gesture of good will. That speaks more or I should say less about the man and the party than any issue discussed on this board.

Choice is a tax credit. For those parents who don't want to participate, they can always opt out, but I daresay few if any would.

And the public schools of the education system bring to mind the Germany that set out to mold its citizens, don't they. It would be so much more in tune with the rights of parents to give them another hundred dollars so that everyone can choose either Upper Canada College or not to educate their children. What pitiful foolishness this talk of "choice" is. What pathetic excuses for parents are those with children who can support this deliberate avoidance of parental responsibility that it really is. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Avoidance of parental resposibility"? That statement is as stupid as Scott Reid's "beer and popcorn" line. What condescending rubbish.

Sounds lovely... Quebec and the Maritimes are the real Canadian place to have Christmas... let it snow, let it snow, let it snow... I have so many fond memories of that as a lad... i am a lucky man to have have such deep roots in this wonderful land... and I know that there are other Canadians who feel the same about their homeland... BC to Baffin Island... Alberta to Antigonish... --- Conservatives and American Republicans are sliding money into Quebec... they hate Canada and want to see our end... this is where the money comes from... all off the books... it's bad enough that the Bloc and the Conservative Party of Canada (read Republican wannabees) conspired to bring down a very productive Parliament... but now they are the clear enemies of Canada... good Canadians need to work hard to overcome this foe... it's time to "Stand on Guard"... our dominion is not free... we have to work for it each day... We need to work very hard this time, our country is at stake... our enemies only see us for the money they can make by the dissasembly of all our hard work... they would take away our beautiful land, for a small amount of money each, and a pat on the back by the Americans and International Corporations... may God forgive them for their folly... Canada IS the 21st Century... we are leading the way... we need men and women of vision... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh my!

I'm talking to lot's of people and they're shocked and dismayed at this latest scandal in the making. These are/were Liberals. The pattern of denying wrongdoing only to have these scandals exposed, is making them crazy. With two exceptions they will vote Conservative or NDP- anybody but the Liberals.

Yes, I agree. I would like to know the extent of interference/influence the Liberal Party has exerted on our national police force over the last 12 or so years.

What do you know, the RCMP says there is no EVIDENCE. There is only allegations. Save your stakes and crosses, nothing has been proven yet. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would expect no less from the RCMP considering we are in the middle of an election. These are not frivolous allegations AND the RCMP as well as other police forces certainly do not waste investigaive time unless there are indicators of some wrongdoing.

That is what I meant when I said informing somebody privately. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out. Sounds like you are actually agreeing with me on this. You appear to have talked yourself into seeing the potential wrongdoing in this one. Good for you! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good for me? Get a life. How very uppity of you to say that. The potential for wrongdoing is a hell of a lot different than actual proof. Why do you fail to see both sides? Is it not just as possible that there was no illegal action? Shame on your small mindedness. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh my, this sounds like a Liberal feeling victimized and it's all the Oppositions fault. The irony of a Liberal demanding for someone to "see both sides" is simply astounding.

Like I stated the other day, speaking of hypocrisy, the day Paul Martin and the Liberal Party of Canada write a cheque to the Government of Canada for the money they stole from the Canadian people, they have no credibility, whatsoever. Politics is one thing but the grand denial of the thievery on their watch is beyond belief. Where's the money Paul???

I personally believe that there will be a gradual separation of of Quebec from the rest of Canada. What form that will take is difficult to say, but I do not think we would see a radical form of secession as we saw with the Confederates States. Likewise, I cannot see an armed conflict as a result. Canada evolved peacefuly out of disatisfaction as a colony of the British Empire. The Federalist (Liberal) approach of the last 37 years hasn't worked particularily well because the Separatist movement has grown to encompass almost half the population of Quebec. My biggest concern is with the Liberal Party mismanaging the portfolio again. We desperately need some fresh ideas to restore some trust in Federal/Provincial relations.

The people of Lakeshore-Etobicoke found out how well that works!

I don't condone in any way what Bertuzzi did to Moore, but if Wayne Gretzy says Todd Bertuzzi is a suitable representative for Canada's Olympic Hockey team, that's good enough for me.

Maybe if the Liberal Party of Canada simply cut a cheque to the Government of Canada repaying the millions. Wouldn't that be the honourable thing to do?

Where in the Charter?

CPCers just want to bury this issue because they know their position is irrational. When their arguments are shut down, they shut up, say the issue is"not on people's radar," or desperately try to change the subject. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Two debates with questions from Canadians about what really concerns them and I don't recall this issue being raised. Off Canadians radar, you bet.

And what would Stevie have done? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Since you've still not answered the question, I'll tell you what Stephen Harper himself said he'd do: October 13, 2005 Stephen Harper said that a Conservative government would threaten the US with retaliatory trade measures. Harper went on to say that there must be repercussions from the refusal of the Americans to respect decisions by NAFTA dispute-resolution panels. September 9, 2005 Stephen Harper said that as Prime Minister, he'd take a hardline position with the United States and refuse to bargain over the issue. Source for the above: http://www.wednesday-night.com/Softwood-Lumber.asp I wonder why Harper's approach sounds so remarkably familiar? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The emphasis on this is to find new markets, that's makes good business sense. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, that's why Martin proposed it. But I'll ask you again? How is Stephen Harper's approach to the softwood lumber dispute different from Martin's? Do you agree with Harper threatening retaliatory trade measures against the US? Do you agree with him taking a hardline approach and refusing to negotiate? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We won't know until Jan. 23. The distinction is not the message but the delivery. The Liberals throw in the anti-American comments for reasons known only to themselves. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We won't know whether you agree with Harper threatening retaliatory measures against the US until January 23rd? We won't know whether you agree with Harper taking a hardline approach and refusing to negotiate until January 23rd? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> yes. The really beauty of this little exchange is that at least I've got you off your pot crusade...at least for a while.

And what would Stevie have done? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Since you've still not answered the question, I'll tell you what Stephen Harper himself said he'd do: October 13, 2005 Stephen Harper said that a Conservative government would threaten the US with retaliatory trade measures. Harper went on to say that there must be repercussions from the refusal of the Americans to respect decisions by NAFTA dispute-resolution panels. September 9, 2005 Stephen Harper said that as Prime Minister, he'd take a hardline position with the United States and refuse to bargain over the issue. Source for the above: http://www.wednesday-night.com/Softwood-Lumber.asp I wonder why Harper's approach sounds so remarkably familiar? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The emphasis on this is to find new markets, that's makes good business sense. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, that's why Martin proposed it. But I'll ask you again? How is Stephen Harper's approach to the softwood lumber dispute different from Martin's? Do you agree with Harper threatening retaliatory trade measures against the US? Do you agree with him taking a hardline approach and refusing to negotiate? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We won't know until Jan. 23. The distinction is not the message but the delivery. The Liberals throw in the anti-American comments for reasons known only to themselves.

And what would Stevie have done? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Since you've still not answered the question, I'll tell you what Stephen Harper himself said he'd do: October 13, 2005 Stephen Harper said that a Conservative government would threaten the US with retaliatory trade measures. Harper went on to say that there must be repercussions from the refusal of the Americans to respect decisions by NAFTA dispute-resolution panels. September 9, 2005 Stephen Harper said that as Prime Minister, he'd take a hardline position with the United States and refuse to bargain over the issue. Source for the above: http://www.wednesday-night.com/Softwood-Lumber.asp I wonder why Harper's approach sounds so remarkably familiar? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The emphasis on this is to find new markets, that's makes good business sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks Shoop, that just about says it.

Now given that Mulroney's "diplomacy" totally failed on softwood lumber, and the US has now twice reduced softwood tariffs in the short time since Martin became Prime Minister, what would Harper do differently? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Recent events with both NAFTA and WTO rulings (real diplomacy by professionals not appointees) have allowed some progress on this dispute. Liberal rhetoric has done nothing, nada, zero to influence this progress. The difference between Harper and Martin is to stop the rhetoric and concentrate on the issue at hand. That's what leaders do. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You call this an answer to my question? Are you not aware of how the US reacted to the NAFTA and WTO rulings? They ignored them. The US Department of Commerce rolled back the duties after Martin and McKenna escalated their criticism of the US for not complying. Mulroney, like Chretien, was totally ineffective in getting any concessions from the US. But there have now been two major reductions in the softwood lumber duty since Martin took office. Of course it helps that Martin has reminded the US that Canada is the world's largest supplier of energy to the US. And even Harper, if asked how he'd handle softwood lumber, would have come up with a less superficial and more meaningful response than he'd "stop the rhetoric and concentrate on the issue at hand." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh yeah, Frankie and Paulies sniping has softened the US position.

Depends on how you define progress. The US reduced it's duties on softwood lumber from 27% to 20% last year. On December 5, 2005, the US Department of Commerce reduced the duties from 20% to 11%. This followed shortly after Paul Martin addressed powerful business groups in the US and reminded them how dependent the US was on Canadian energy and how NAFTA had ruled in Canada's favour. It followed Martin's rebuke of Bush at an international conference. It followed Frank McKenna informing various media and the American public of Canada's position on softwood lumber. The US first imposed tariffs on softwood lumber in the 80's when Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister before NAFTA even existed. Mulroney used a different form of diplomacy. He drank with Ronald Reagan. He sang with Ronald Reagan. He bent over for Ronald Reagan. Yet every effort to reduce softwood tariffs was rebuffed by Reagan. Mulroney and his Conservative diplomats were totally unsuccessful in getting even a token reduction in tariffs. That's one of the reasons Mulroney negotiated NAFTA. He figured with an objective free trade agreement in place, the US would need to comply with it's rulings. Now given that Mulroney's "diplomacy" totally failed on softwood lumber, and the US has now twice reduced softwood tariffs in the short time since Martin became Prime Minister, what would Harper do differently? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Post NAFTA, the Liberals took power and the American bashing commenced. Recent events with both NAFTA and WTO rulings (real diplomacy by professionals not appointees) have allowed some progress on this dispute. Liberal rhetoric has done nothing, nada, zero to influence this progress. The difference between Harper and Martin is to stop the rhetoric and concentrate on the issue at hand. That's what leaders do.

Being on the left I have to wonder what you talking about re intolerance? Which side in NOrth America favours no abortions (woman's right to choose)no same sex marriage, hatred spouting talk show hosts (Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly to name only a few), lying Presidents, Presidents who invade countries and carpet bombs a main city killing thousands, Christian evangelist calling for the death of foreign leaders and anyone interferring in their holy Trinity Broadcast system, neo-nazi Christian movements who kill homosexuals, and the list goes on. And if you think we (lefties) have a problem with the above, you'd be 100% right. If it's intolerant to stand up and expose and challenge basic human rights violations, then it would only be directed towards the creators of such inhumane actions. You see, Liberals generally don't tar all their opponents with the same wide brush, like Stephen Harper and Jack Layton do on a consistent basis. And oh, so far two U.S. Ambassadors to Canada have seen fit to involve themselves in our affairs. So again, you tell me who the intolerant ones are? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nice try-your references to the American right don't apply here. I'm not talking about that particular movement and am not in favour of that extreme element. Intolerance abounds on the extemes of every ideology. Most Canadians do not fit into that mould; which is my point. This another Liberal attempt at picturing the Conservative Party's hidden agenda, it's pathetic. We need look at the last 12 years of Liberal Government and see a lack of transparency and government reform that might actually improve our democratic process. The claims of American Ambassadors getting involved in our affairs has only been after Liberal Prime Ministers provoking the Americans. It might play well in Liberaland, but is misplaced and misguided. That's why we have diplomats and since those diplomats have been Liberal appointees it's no wonder we haven't made progress on issues like soft wood lumber.