betsy

The case you're talking about is one of many grey areas that will be tested. The KoC is a Catholic organization, but not a church. Its members are practicing Catholics, but being a practicing Catholic doesn't give you carte blanche to discriminate. There are many more cases that will need to be tested, including adoption. You mean to tell me that lesbians can dictate to the Catholic Women's League? KoC may be an organization....but it is an organization based on religion! It is these kind of challenges that only infuriates people more towards the gay group! I would like to see them try this shenanigan on the Muslims and we'll see how they deal with the fatwa. We are a majority though Betsy, meaning we have no rights. Just have to take it I guess, religion is a bad thing in Canada (unless your Muslim). You know what, I feel more inclined to believe that religion is under siege! Of course they'll start on Christianity...since as you say, we're the majority....and we do not go to extremes in fighting for our beliefs. At least, the gay group had done one good thing: it united the muslim countries with the US in turning down ILGA's application in the UN. At least there's one common ground that they agree with, eh?

KoC hall can be a fund-raising option for this group. It is unlike any business places. Since it is a religious property, based on their religion...they can impose rules that do not go against their faith. Of all public halls available, why would these lesbains insist on this particular one? Btw, that tribunal for human rights....how do those judges get chosen?

The case you're talking about is one of many grey areas that will be tested. The KoC is a Catholic organization, but not a church. Its members are practicing Catholics, but being a practicing Catholic doesn't give you carte blanche to discriminate. There are many more cases that will need to be tested, including adoption. You mean to tell me that lesbians can dictate to the Catholic Women's League? KoC may be an organization....but it is an organization based on religion! It is these kind of challenges that only infuriates people more towards the gay group! I would like to see them try this shenanigan on the Muslims and we'll see how they deal with the fatwa.

NDP is out to lunch. They propose a lot of social fundings and claim to be working for the working people. They are so anti-corporations! How many big businesses closed down and moved elsewhere? How many people had lost their jobs? How can they even think of financing all these grandiose policies they promise...if they keep bashing corporations who provide jobs for the working people? Who will be saddled with all these expenses? And yet they promise tax breaks for everyone. Yeah, right.

True! Throughout the world, there is a ritual celebrating the union of a man and a woman. It may be known by another name in another language....but the meaning is nevertheless the same. We know it as marriage.

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!

Will try that one.

I agree. There should be some regulations. The Day Nurseries Act is already there. If there will be any inspections, I would like to see The Ministry getting directly involved in it. I envision getting inspected the same way as food industry gets inspected by Health and Safety. Random. With consistent rules...the power not there to be abused. A lot of us want to keep operating as independent businesses. We are willing to follow regulations. You wouldn't believe the petty nonsense we have to put up with the agency doing inspection for their homes. They make up their own rules as they go along. There is no consistency. I find it too unprofessional. Being under a licensing agency opens up to unfair treatment and unfair opportunities for those subjected to be under them...for they wield the power as to whom to give what clientele. Careprovider A may be given all the choice clients with regular hours thus her spaces are neatly filled up by full-time children...whereas Caregiver B may be given all the crappy schedules, a motley mixed of drop ins and part-timers filling up her spaces....thereby, earning potentials are vastly different between the two. This agency had broken its own rules. On various occasions with various caregivers. I was one of them.

I used to be in a dance troupe in College under a gay choreographer. There were several gay dancers too. We used to joked then that you see all these macho-looking men sign in to join (to avoid having to do another requirement)...and given three months, they all got transformed into effeminate, shrieking flamboyant girlie men! Those were the fun days. I must say gays , (at least the ones that I had befriended) were fun to be around with. But the thing is, it was notable that two of those macho men-turned-gays....suddenly turned back into men, and married women. Of all surprises, one who've I've known to be flamboyantly gay all along...was so masculine years later. Didn't Freud say that all of us go through this "confusion" ....mostly during pre-adolescent or pubescent stages? That those stages are normal? That in the end, it will get sorted out?

I thought there's equal pay now? Besides, who do you think fork over the extra expenses for maternity leave? Hiring someobody to fill in while the mother is on a year-long leave? Sick child leave? Where does the money come from? You bet it's tacked onto prices...which the consumers have to pay. So taxpayers (being consumers) get a double whammy! And what happens when the business decide to close down eventually and open somewhere in Tiki-Tiki island ...just so they can compete? Who eventually loses a job?

But aren't those daycares such as the one mentioned by Tml gone through training programs? Isn't it supposed to be regulated? In other words...regulating and endless training programs may help...but offers no guarantee. So they are the same as that of unlicensed daycares. It would be better then if Harper pours money into providing training programs for EVERYONE interested...including parents!

Because it is up to the parents to find and decide on a caregiver that offers what coincides with the parents' idea of what "quality" ought to be. Some parents just don't like their children insitutionalized in what looked like a cold setting of a building from day one. They want their very young children enjoying a home setting...the warmth and coziness, and flexibility that comes along with it. Some parents believe that learning at an early age ought to be done through play. Let children be children. So of course they'll go for a care provider who shares the same views and offers what the parents deem as right for their child.

But the frequency of caregiver turnover is not the same when you compare an institution to a private care. Parents will have an idea what the chances are of a private caregiver suddenly quitting and looking for a much better income. You're only dealing with one caregiver. When a caregiver is in the business for 10 years or so, chances are she'd still be around much longer. But it's a risk that everyone will have to take....for no one can predict what could happen down the road. However, the institution has a "revolving door"....and we're not talking about children dealing with only one caregiver. We're talking about children dealing with several, depending on varying shifts and hours. The bonding and sense of loss felt by children will be more likely to be frequent....the psychological effects will be more devastating! So we up the wages. To how much? And if we do, will it stay capped for a few years...or will Union demand more? The main cause of people quitting is what they call "burn-out." And too much bureaucracy is one of the reason why a lot of staff are burnt out.

I would like to pursue another branch of this topic...that focus on the what children really learn from daycares and how it affects them later in life and us in society. I will have to make another topic for it.

Oh I agree about the existence of positive effects on children who attend early daycare. However, this does not mean that chilkdren would not benefit from home. All it takes is a knowledgeable and dedicated parent who will make it a point that her children will learn those. Granted, I agree that not all mothers have the patience and the inclination to do those. But a lot do. There are Group Play centres and parks where children and caregivers can meet and intermingle with others....so it's not like there will be no way to learn how to socialize. My points are: 1. Why do you assume ALL parents are incapable of good judgement as far as making daycare decisions? That the liberal-thinkers ought to make the decisions for them? 2. In the same token, why do we automatically assume that ALL home daycares are inferior, quality-wise? We've seen public-funded daycares have had their shares of questionable standards/procedures...and yet you still maintain that ALL home daycares are not good for children. 3. We see what's happening to Quebec National Childcare. That is the blueprint for the National Childcare they want to open nationwide. Standards have already been lowered btw! We see it failing...and wanting to be injected with more cash! How much "transfusion" will it require? 4. The new studies show that children in Quebec National Childcare are WORSE OFF. You can say that you don't really agree with Quebec Childcare system....but this plan of the Liberals/NDP is modeled after Quebec! Why do we want to spend astronomical amount of money on a failing system? 5. There will be ample spaces available from the current public daycares existing now, especially if Harper will go ahead with his plans. Public-funded agency operating in my area have a shortage of children actually...and this had been going on for years! Either they really pick-and-choose the kind of working parents (with ideal working schedules) they accomodate, or parents are avoiding them! They seem to be saving their limited spaces for parents with regular hours! So there is really no cause for worry as far as spaces go! Just make it mandatory that these public funded agencies/daycares accomodate people with non-regular schedules...for these are the people that needs the most help! Isn't this why we finance such places? So there will be help for those parents who are not in any enviable position of having coshy 9-5 jobs...or any full-time hours for that matter? 6. Do you know how many daycare providers (mostly women, if this makes any difference at all) will be probably out of an income nation-wide? A lot of these people have chosen this career for a reason. So most join the ranks of un-employed! What of my friend who had done childcare for almost 20 years just so she can stay with her mentally-challenged daughter? She can't be the only one who is in this kind of predicament. Don't say that we can all apply for a job at the institutionalized version of a daycare. 7. It's the bureacracy! That is the main reason why public daycares have a hard time keeping staff! We've experienced firsthand the ridiculous amount of bureacracy...that's why at one point, careproviders had left the agency in droves!

The Liberals are fueling this. As M Duffy quipped, "they've got lots of time on their hands."

Yes, and also I read from another old article that they have increased the ratio of children per adult. This is also one of my concern....that eventually, the standard will be lowered...and they will end up like our bloated classrooms with so many students per teacher. If the National Childcare is already in place, would it matter how much we complain about the lowered standard? We'll end up stuck with it. I'm all for quality care. And I'm all for quality care that includes the introductions of good values to young children....didn't we learn these from home?

I was thinking of parenting/attachment when I mentioned age three. You're right, they'll still need daycare after that. If I am a working mother who earns minimum wage....if I consider all my expenses (car/gas, clothing, travel time, daycare, etc.), not to mention the hectic schedule and stress this will bring, affecting the quality of life at home for everyone.....it may be wiser to just stay at home with my children than work. A lot of mothers are in that kind of position. These are usually the ones who need subsidy. Btw, with Harper's plan what will happen with the daycare spaces in public daycares existing now? I assume that they'll still be around?

Mrs. Chambers from Youth Services said during an interview with M Duffy that this National Childcare will prepare children for grade 1. What happened to Kindergarten?

It's not like mothers are being told not to have careers. One sensible option is to postpone having a career for let's say at least 3 years so mothers can spend those early years with their children.....or postone having a child until one can readily afford to. What is a "quality system", btw? One's idea of "quality" may not be the same as another's definition of it. A lot of people are thinking that a National daycare offers quality care....but they do ignore one glaring flaw that has a negative effects on children: the frequent bonding and sense of loss children feel due to the frequent coming and going of various caregivers in an institution. If it is supposed to be a quality system, why then does the most recent study of Quebec National Childcare show that "children are worse off" in this quality system?

Besides, people from Vancouver who knows about politics and trade all seem to applaud having Emmerson on board. They say right now people should just hold their noses on the stink and wait, for in the end they'll see the wisdom in Harper's decision. This Emmerson crossing did not happen to bring a government down, unlike Belinda's. It happened for it will benefit Canada.

They're citing the ruling of the Ethics Commission on the Grewal-Dosanghj affair. Something about luring a person to cross the floor with promise of personal gain or reward. What can come out of this?

"One might as well ask, "How does my printing counterfeit $20 bills hurt your wallet?" Or to use another example, can you imagine a building where every carpenter defined his own standard of measurement? A man and a woman joined together in holy matrimony is the time-tested "yardstick" for marriage. One cannot alter the definition of marriage without throwing society into confusion any more than one can change the definition of a yardstick. Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. And like all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing. The destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable. The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as defined as the union of a man and a woman, and survived.33" http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BC04C02&v=PRINT

There may be gay unions...but never heard of any gay marriages in history. Can you give an example as to when or where in history? Just curious.

Here's one! Liberals say Emmerson scuttled a deal with Softwood lumber! But I don't know if this "dirt" belongs to the Conservative....after all, Emmerson supposedly scuttled the deal while being a Liberal.....and the Liberals are only crying about it now, after all those months of silence and compliance.