fixer1

By your reasoning here, you would have common citizens shooting blind ("Which person is the criminal?" I don't know Frank! Just keep shootin'!") If the criminals had no choice but to use rifles, they would be pretty easy to spot in a mall carrying a long barrel shotgun or a long bow. BTW I can RUN from a knife, I cannot run from a bullet. If knives are so effective as a killing weapon, perhaps more hunters should use them for bagging next year's moose. Learn to be a doer..... Hmmm what does that mean? Learn to pack a gun and shoot anyone who may or may not be a criminal (aren't ALL people in baggy pants in the city considered criminals?) Don't get me wrong -- I'm certainly not against hunting. I'm against shooting for fun. Yes, I'm against it. Shooting is not supposed to be fun for goodness sake! When you shoot a moose you should be very humbled and thank it for feeding your family. Killing is not FUN no matter WHAT you kill -- it's a living, breathing thing and should be respected as such. Pay homage for the food you recieve by killing. We need to kill to eat but there should be no joy in killing a living thing. I said nothing about using guns to stop the shootings in Toronto. People could have easily grabbed and pined the guy shooting, or followed to see where he went so police could find them. I see maybe people can not understand such things as being willing to stand up to these guys. Yes in the country we have guns and we shoot things GET OVER IT. The cities think it is all me me me. Maybe you city people need to learn what built Canada and it was not the likes of you. I should not say all I have many friends from the city and they also come out hunting and fishing etc. They seem to have their heads on pretty straight. Most of them would interfere when they see a group of people picking on another. I do not believe they would give not doing so a second thought. Maybe I should put it this way, the city people who want to say police protect them always, should stay right where they are ( within minutes of policwe responce). Out of the cities police respoce is like 30-60 minutes for emergencies (life threatening), days for robberies etc. And BTW we pay almost as much now in taxes as the city people do. The guys you see jumping out of cars hunting and shooting at each other are not trained in hiunting and fishing. These are just people who need to learn the rights and wrongs. Do hunting accidents happen yes, but not as much as sports injuries and not nearly the number of deaths. So fo try and bam sports! So anyway I still stand by what I said. People will never be able to get rid if criminals in their neighbourhoods, unless sthey stand up for the neighbourhood, and I am not talking armed response but that of numbers. The only time I ever have had my weapons with me while in the city is when I am passing thru to go to a shooting club event or another gun sport event. Even then they are in proper gun storage. I do not think every person in the city needs to have a gun, but those who wish to own rifles etc should be allowed to do so without government interference. All hand guns should be registered and proper storage is a must no matter where you are.

If we had to start all over today, and decided that we were going to develop a method of government where we all got to choose the leader and the people who woulfd represent us as grou[ps with certain boundaries. We would probably come up with something near to the American system. I do not see the party system as being a good method, and it does have very little to do with equal representation. So if that is what you are looking for. Well you can not get there from here.

but that then would leave us LIBERALs eeeecchh yyyyuuucckk oooowwww. Boy it stinbks in here. Honey can you let the LIBERAL out I think he just went on the rug.

If this was the 1950's I would agree with you. But it is not. Back then Canada flew the Union Jack as its flag and we all pledged aligence to the queen each day in school. That al changed when we got our new flag and we withdrew from being a dominion and were granted our our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are now a country, sovereign and free. The problems come back in history to haunt us. The battle at Quebec City between Wolfe and Montcalm was lost by the french and they pledged to the British realm and the Queen. That is why they were not spoils of war so to speak. France was having problems after that with the new world and sold what they had left to the United States (Louisiana Purchase). The difference is the French around New Orleans were asimmilated into the USA. In Canada we allowed them to go on working and exploring as if they were still part of France. We never really asimilated them, at a time when this was just assumed. Now the word assimilate is something people abhor and cry foul at. They say you allowed us to be French so long we are now a distnct society within Canada. The catch is we all know that allowing them the distinct status, also makes seperation easier when they try that. So we are now seeing what a small mistake in history and untimely nation building has brought to modern government. I like most Canadians see there not being a huge problem with the Distinct Society, as long as that society pleges to the country of Canada once and for all. The nervous nellies on the Meech Lake Accord, have brought you this same problem now mired with much more baggage. Hind site is perfect vision RIGHT?

When it comes to violent crimes like murder and attempted murder, it should not matter if it was a first offence or not. We hope there is never a second offence for murder period. Now does that mean there can not be mitigating circumstances? Yes ther can be and that is why we have several levels of murder under the law. The trouble is the way the law runs now is you are always charged with the maximum they can think of, so you will plead bargain down to a lesser charge, and they hope it will then be the level it should be at. The trouble is, that is not always the case and not all people understand that the law is almost like bargaining for a car. When it comes to people who are in authority over others and if they break the law, then the maximum should be the sentence. For people who have a record of violent crime the same thing. If someone has a history of shoplifting and then gets into a fight, it is diiferent but not cmpelling. If a person murdered or killed without thinking and was aggravated into it, and it was his first offence then Manslaughter would be best. I guess the trouble with the law the way it is now, you need a lawyer, to navigate the system if you have any hope of justice. All too many people can not afford lawyers and the ones legal aid has are very much lacking. The system is not very good, but it is repairable. Just not many are trying to do the repairs.

I guess you must have been from a different world. As Child I was raised in Galt On. (50 miles from Toronto) most people were not farmers but many still hunted etc. My grandfather was a farmer in Cochrane On, and he was the one who taught us kids how to hunt and fish and general woodmanship. Believe me when I say that if you are like you are, you had best never stray in the woods of any northern On town, because wildlife there may find you quite appettizing. You seem to have the same problem many people from cities have, and that is you think it is all about you and the cities. Wake up and smell the roses, as We the country people, who till the land and grow your food, are not like you and we do not want to be like you in any way. As I said, Toronto is full of cowards who see people picking on others less able and you turn a blind eye and walk away. In the country you would not find this. We have pride and we also do not idly stand by when people are picked on. Over 100 people were present the day the shooting started at the Eaton Center, and yet no one made any attempt to restrain the shooters, or even follow them so police could capture them. And you think we should be like city people :angry: Those who never learn about hunting and fishing and woodsmanship, will never gate to see 90% of Canada. I feel sad for you, as you gringe and hid when things happen around you. The reason the cities are so crowded with criminals is because, you allow them to be there. Even when they are caught, you are afraid to speak up. I am glad my grandfather taught all my brothers and myself to hunt and fishing and woodsmanship, because he was a hunting guide in his early years, and it would have been such a shame to have lost that knowledge that was so important to Canada at one time. It makes me feel proud to be Canadian, and have knowledge of things soon forgotten by many. You will never hear the howles of wolves or coyotes, See deer and moose in their natural habitats. Know the difference between black , brown and grizzily bears. Or that all white bears are no polar bears. I have yet to hunt in the far north or even trek there. But I hope to one day have that chance, and yes I will have my guns and weapons with me. Oh, yes I almost forgot, I also am pretty good with a compound bow and arrow. If you think guns are bad and kill, moden day bows and arrows are probably a more devastating weapon then any of them. You see even if all the guns were taken away from all the criminals, they would then resort to other weapons like knives and bows etc.. You only get rid of criminals when you start standing up for yourselves. Swarming is something you read so much about now happening in the cities, is something that would be hard to do if people stood together and stopped these happenings. Only when these happen in isolated areas do I think it not easy to stop. But when this is done in crowded shopping malls, that really bothers me. So yes you can try and let licensed hunters and others do for you what you are not able to stand up and do yourself. But what happens when you are all alone and help can not come for quite some time. Learn to be a doer. You have it in you to stand up for what is yours and be proud to do it. Yes it some times has to come thru many fears, and nervousness. But it will come. We all have it in us to stand up for what is right. We proved that long ago with the soldiers we sent to war to give us the freedom to be about to do the things we now do. Do not give up any of your rights so easily when so many have died to see you have those same rights.

My guns are rifles, twoo 22 cal a 3.06cal and a 20 guage shot gun. Both myself and my wife are the owners and both have been members of gun clubs for many years. I have used hand guns before to target shoot and have only taken them camping in the wilds of Alberta. The hand guns were sold a while back to a games warden that wanted them for his collection. As for the shooting in Toronto goes it seems a shame to me that hundreds were present and no one tried to tackle the shooters. Many amy say that it would be crazy to do so, but when you have a crowd whose only purpose is to flee this stuff, you can not blame the police for not catching the shooters. If people would have tackled the guy and held him this would have been a good sign that people have had enough. When these giys see that they have no where to hide and all will turn on him. He will know his time free is short. I have been shot at in Toronto in 1980, I had the glass t top windows of my Trans Am shot out while helping a cripple guy and his girl friend, who were being attacked by this same guy. I would do it again, if the same thing happened. Ther trouble with people today is they walk away from things saying it is not their problem. Oh and yes they got the guy who shot out the windows. The worst part of it was I was the only one who signed for charges to be laid. The Crippled guy and his girlfriend were too afraid of the guy to press charges. That is why Toronto is the way it is, nobody thinks it is their problem.

I have my guns for sport and for varmint control. I live in the country roughly 45 miles from any large city. I guess I would also have to say my guns are for my family's safety because the policing of rural areas is not wht you would call fast. There are many times during a day that police responce even to an emergency could be 30-60 minutes away. Now, yes I am a bit of a do everything myself type person, and that is because I have to be. Not so long ago most Canadians were this way because they had to be as well. Our country is not fully settled and yes there are many more wild areas then there are civilized ones. Why is it that the stuffy fat headed liberal city dwellers think that only what they want counts. Maybe if some of these panty waists would learn that sometimes being a man, is also standing up to things. Those who whine run and hide, when violence is around them, should be ashamed of them selves because if people stood up to these people, they would not be in your faces all the time. Those will say it is the job of the police to catch them, forget that police can not be everywhere. The troble is everyone is afraid to act, and that is exactly why these punks get away with all they do. So yes I have my guns, I would never use them in a criminal way, but you can be assured that id you are my neighbour and some one is attacking you, I will be running to help you defend against thius attack. Not hiding under cover waiting for it to be over with. Yes many will say, I am crazy for getting involved, but I say I would be crazier not to. Some things are worth risking your life for. Being able to be free and feel good about my life and my beliefs is one of the things I think is worth fighting for. The gun registry was not a problem for me at first and I registered all my guns several times. It was when time after time they kept losing the data and always asked for it to be done again and again, that I had problems with it. After 4 attempts I managed to get one gun registered and the others thye could not say it they made it to the data base. 6 months later I found that they all did make it, but they again lost the data and were asking me to register again. Well, I did comply the last time, and I mean the last time. I have all the paper worlk I did for every attempt, just so I could prove I did what I was supposed to do. Now I am glad to hear the registry will be long gone. I do not care if they have a record of my guns or not. I have all the serial numbers and they are always in a gun safe and amunition is kept in a different house safe. If they are ever stolen I can give them all the information they need if they ever find my guns to identify them. Now do I sound like I am a criminal trying to subvert attempt to have weapons? People like Margrace who think no one needs guns except the police, are only kidding themselves. The police can not protect you all the time. You do need to have a back bone some where in you to at times stand up and take control of your own fate. When people in Toronto start tackling these gunman when they start their rampages, and stand op against the neighbourhood bullies. Then you will have safer streets. If you are waiting for the police to do it all for you, then you will have what you have now. The choice is yours. But registering law abiding people with guns is not the answer. It is like taking the roaster out of the hen house when the fox comes. Then there is no protection until the farmer comes. How many hens die while they wait for the farmer? I do not know but plain old country sense is what the city people need.

Of course Liberals did not have exclusive rights to back room deals and politics. They just perfected it and called it their order of the day run of the mill operations. I am glad they are no out. The only thing that would make me happier is to learn that at their leadership convention, they all got sick and died. But ahlass I never get my wishes granted. It is too bad, as that would really be making the world a better place

I think it is a good thing that Harper and Charest have had the meeting. It does not mean it has to be a hush hush thing. It should not take a lot of thinking to know the type of issues that will be talked about. Also since Martin's Liberals all but sold out the Charest liberals, in everything, it is nice to see that someone is again talking to them with friendly intwentions. Harper will not sell out the store, and I am sure he will speak candidly about hisintentions on the fiscal imbalance, and what he has in mind for solving it. It is nice to see that the government is moving on even before it sits in a month or so. I am sure he will meet with all the premiers shortly each one on one. It just seems to me to be the right thing to do, and no one should find fault in any of this.

We do this everday, which is why we use common sense when using our freedom of speech. Tell an over wieght women She's a cow, have a complete stranger comment on your wife or girlfriends breasts while your standing next to her. These examples would be an irresponsible use of my freedoms of speech, because they would proably provoke a violent response either verbal or punch in the face. But then again i knew that before hand, what the proable outcome would be. So while i'm wiping the blood from my nose and watching you being arrested for assualt ,who's right here Me for exericising my freedom of speech and not exericising common sense or you for finding the comment offensive and punching me in the face. This is why we also have many levels of assault to charge one with. The Aggravated assault that you have displayed here as an example would have a large bearing on the sentence given the person charged. It probably would get a absolute discharge, by most judges no a days.

I think that the long gun registry was one of the stupiest things that ever was brought out by a government. I believe they did this just to give employment to Marimachi New Brunswick, because there is no other sensible reason for it. It does not control the weapons in any way and it tends to make criminals of people wo use these rifles to hunt and for pest control. Canada being a vast country and still having many wild areas, where few should venture without weapons for security, means that we should not be even entertaining the idea of this registry. The costs are 1000 times first projected and the fact that even when registering the guns, the registrtion always seems to get lost some where along the way. The wife and myself registered 4 rifles that we have, and we had to re-register them 3 more times before they finally acknowledged them. During that time had a police officer or any law enforcement officer came to the house and saw the guns, and checked for registrtion, both my wife and myself cou;ld have been charged. It is such a farce. I for one will not be sorry to see the registry gone.

Corpral punishment is legal for the parents and people given the authoirty to care for the children. This does mean teachers etc. The means must not be that it is causing injury and bruising to any degree but slightly redish. A parent or guardian should never punish a child while he or she is mad, and not in total control. The Supreme Court of Canada has handed down these and other rulings on them. While some parents will say they will never spank their children, that is fine as long as their children are mindful and do not get into trouble. You must remember though, that once your child is in his or her teens, their peers will probably be harder on them, then any parent or spanking ever was. It is also a time where if you failed to instill proper values on your children, that it will show and probably again be taken out of your hands if repeat offences end the person in courts. Life is the greatest teacher of all, and while we all know that violence is not to be used, it also should be known that some times you must take a stand for something, and it may well mean physically getting involed. I had a terrible childhood, and a very abusive father, that believed if you were still able to stand you probably were not smacked hard enough. Most of it was for minor things and big things were a wonder that you survived. I am now 55, so that should put a time frame for this. My teachers all know how my parents were and so they never made any calls or said anything to set them off. That was a different time. That all being said and done, I still believe that corpral punishment is useful and good, but only with the restraints I said above. It should also be the last resort action in trying to correct a misbehaved child. They should know that when all else fails that is going to be the final say. You will find kids less likely to push to that level. The trouble is that kids once they have had a life where there never were spanked, get into serious trouble they will simply fall apart when they find that there is a reaction to their acts. That is often sad, but it is better they learn from someone they know is caring for them, then later in life by someone that has no regard for them. My Children will tell you that I seldom ever had to use physical punishment, but when it was used it was done in a way that it was not a beating but a corrective method. They now have their own children to raise, and I hope they do so with the same soft heart strong hand approach.

It has been said that Harper ( a hockey nut I am told ) is being encouraged to go to Turin Itlay and see the Canadian Team play in the Olympics. This would be his first overseas trip as Priminister and the Italian government has said they would gladly extend the invitation. I personally think that would be a great idea, and it would do lots to humanize his character. But There will be those that say he is using it as a perk etc .... What do most of the people here think of this?

The publishing of the cartoons, is not freedom of speech or freedom of the press. These cartoons have already been published before and there drew a reaction from Muslims world wide, that has caused riots, property damage, as well as personal injury. So, since that fact is already known before these were printed, it no longer falls under the freedoms, we have in our Charter. The publications who have now published these cartoons, knowing fully well in advance that they are capable of causing the reactions, should now be held accountable for any and all harm that arises from them. As the Supreme Court said before that your right to free speech does not extend to shouting fire in a crowded theater, so it also goes that it does not go to publishing things that will encite the same kind of reactions. I amm not a German or Nazi, but if I did a cartoon if the editor of the Western Standard showing him as a Bath bar of ivory soap and his wife as normal sized bar of soap, and his children as little hand soaps, with the background of of the Stalages, and Hilter standing there with Guiring, saying " I finally have washed my hands with the problem of the Jews", Would that be fine as well. When I know in advance that this would not be taken well by the jewish people and they would be the first to have me charged with hate crime. So please be careful of what you do and say in print. As it can and will cause lots of feelings that can really back fire on you.

It seems to me that any editor that willingly publishes the cartoon that have already caused riots and property damage by outraged muslims, should be dealt with using the very charter rights that he is using to say he is free to do so. He already knows ahead of time that publishing these cartoon will cause actions that will breach the public peace. So he should be charged accordingly and any damage or injury that is caused because of this, should fall on the Magazine to pay for. The editors freedom to speak does not allow him to do things knowing in axdvance that there is a likely reaction to it, that could cause property damage, injury and possible death. He chose to publish it, knowing fully well, what the reactions have been so far. This should override his freedom of the press and charges should be laid. It is time for people to grow up and use their heads for something other then seperating their ears.

I am now more then ever starting to wonder just what all the fuss is about. What I need to know is, where does it make a difference other in just a definition, of whether SS is defined as married or as a civil union or partnering etc. Are there any rights or accesses that would be denied to these people. Is there a law or special clause that would have then in any way treated differently. Or is this really about semantics and wanting to change a long standing definition, to suit the wants of the few? I personally do not care anymore about the definition of marriage, and if I could do it all over again I would never marry officially on paper, because I believe it is a complete farce. As long as I would get the same treatment under the law while being common law then that would be good enough for me. I have learned over the years that I seldom ever have cause to believe in an almighty, and after seeing all the religions I have looked at, I have no need to feel at home with any of them. So, other then the definition of the word marriage, what is there to make all this such a burning issue? Of the few gay people I know, none care one bit about any of this, and laugh at all the kerfulle it has caused. Now I must admit the gays I know are not the type to be flaunting their homosexuality around, but they will openly tell you thye are gay. So is there a certain type of gay person that is pushing all this. Of my gay friends, they tell me is is mostly the gay activist type that seem to push this. I asked what they meant by that, and I must admit each one had a different answer. So that is why I am now asking here, if there are any even tiny differences in the laws or benefits to gay couples that would be joined by civil union.

Kincora The Bloc alos has publicly said that the votes and the support they have right now was not given to them for the mandate of seperation. While that is the party's main goal, they have said they would hold election on those exact points before they would take that kind of action. I do believe I take their word over most other party leaders. So NO The BLOC AS IT STANDS FROM THIS VOTE WAS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF SEPERATION. It is only the foolishness of those who want to use this stuff for playing politics, that really do the country harm. Yes, that does sound like you. Hell, the fact that scumbag liberals would support Harper would be more damaging then the Bloc. The balance of power is with the bloc and a great many of the things that Harper wants past will be supported by the bloc. Did Martin get flack when the Bloc supported the liberals in 82 bills during the government? Harper does not need to worry about the block supporting him as they still are a valid federal party. Only sick liberals, try to demean the value of their votes, but it garners the same as any other vote. The fact that Dingwal's deal was covered over in the 3 days leading up to the vote, is pretty much a sure thing that Liberals would have lost many more seats, as many voters reported making up their minds in the Ballot box, and believe me another scandel was problably more then anyone would have liked and it would have stooped the way over the top vilifaction of Harper in the last days. That I would bet would have really changed the landscape. But it does not matter Liberals are now in meltdown and it will become apparent soon just how long it will take to rebuild. Jack Layton has to get it into his head that he does not hold the balance of power, so he has no potency. He may try to may deals for NDP support but he will not be able to blackmail Harper like he did Martin. You will see this is so quite soon.

Why is it that people have to pigeon hole parties etc. The Bloc is a seperatist party but if yoy look hard at where most of its support comes from it is from people who do not want anything to do with the Liberals and were scareed by the tactics of the other parties about Harper. These kind of people probably make up half the votes the Bloc got. Now since Quebec already has a daycare plan and has been quite successful with it, the only thing they want from the Government is the money that others would have spent on getting their daycare up and running. The Bloc could very well support the Harper clan, and there would be no backlash from this happening, at least not from anyone with any semblence of intelligence. Only those who woould say a bloc vote is not a real vote, are the ones who will cry about it, and if you ask me Canada would be better off without thezse types, but because we are free thinking people we tolerate them. Being accountable in government, isd also being realistic. The PC's were elected on their platform and everything in that platform was spoken to in the vote. Now we all can pretty much say that the only reason Harper did not get a majority was because the liberal withheld the Dingwall affair and once again used way over the top scare tactics to hold Harper to a minority. Even the Liberal were surprised that they got as many seats as they did. So now Harper has been given a Mandate, and in that mandate the majority of Canadians agreed with the Child care bonus plan Harper put forward, People also wanted the cut to the GST, and lets not forget that above all else they want the PC plan to clean up politics, which does go well beyond even Gomery's points as well. We know they liked these because you saw the spikes in support after each of these were made, and so for any party in an minority situation to try and hold ransome any of these things, is just plain wrong. If any of them were to attempt to bring down the house over them, it would mean political suicide for them. Gilles Duceppe has already said he would not bring down the house over any of these, and he would support these actions. That will give Harper all the support he needs. If the rest want to go on record as being against these things then they will see what happens next election. For now I do not see any party even trying to bring the government down. The only party that has any money to be had for another election would be the PC's as they doubled their party support over the last election and it seems that they are still doing quite well with support still on going. So yes Harper has a minority, and anyone who wants to start a bill to bring down this government , had better be sure of the grounds of that bill are what Canadians really will rally around, because if they error in this, they will pay a big price.

We will never stop countries who want to eneter the nuclear club from doing so. No attacks by foreign powers will deter places like Iran from going after nuclear weapons. But those attacks will give a sense of just to any retalliation for such attacks. Many here are making much about the fact that many Muslim countries do not recognise Isreal as a true country of the Jews. But we all conveniently forget that it has just been about 60 years or so that Isreal was formed, and it was taken from the Muslims by the British and given to the Jews for a homeland. Before this there was no homland for the jewish people. So it should not be all that hard to remember that was not all that long ago, and yes many people will have lots of feelings that are still rasw in all of this. So to hear about taking isreal off the face of the map is not something they are saying that has been here for that long. I am not saying it is right, but you must also remeber the reason why there are so many people with such stron g feelings. It would be like some one who has power, to come to the USA and say that everyting west of the Mississippi is now the country of those who worship idols and many gods different from our own, because they need a homeland, and so we are taking your to give to them. ow well would that be taken . Now I am not trying to justify the feelings but rather expalin why and where some of the statements have come from. It is not that they all are nuts but rather they all have been wronged in one way or another just to the benefit of one religious group. I still say that if Iran does develope the bomb they will soon find out that it is not in the use that it gives power but in the unsaid threat to use it, that gives you power. If you ever do use it, then you and all your kind will perish, and they know that. The fact that they have it will then say to them, never again will their homelands be taken and given to someone else. I believe this is the driving force behind all this anger and protective lifestyles, that most of these people have. If they knew that the world would never again do what they did to create Isreal, I am pretty sure they would be more aimiable to sitting down and working things out. So just remeber what many here are calling crazy and nuts, are doing so not understanding why it has come down to all of this.

I believe that the teen involved in selling the girls the drug should be sentenced to a term of 10 years minimum, and he should be transferred to prison at the age of 18. He above all else sold a substance that took the life of a girl. Yes he did not intend for it to happen but it did and so he should face the consquences of his actions. He could reduce his jail time by one half, if he turns in the person who sold it to him. Otherwise he should do the full time on his ticket. Ay age 16 we all pretty much know and understand the idea of action and consequnces, so he now should not be surprised by what comes his way. If he is given the sentence I have suggested, I am pretty sure he will give most drugs a wide birth after his release. If he is a model prisoner, he could apply for national parole at 1/3 his sentence, and with good behaviour time he may even get by without having to enter the prison system. While many will say this is too harsh, I believe it is balanced with just about the right weight of punishment against what he can do to make it better.

As far as SSM goes, I would like to think that they will do it sooner rather then later, as no matter what the outcome of the vote, there will be a very large number of people unhappy, and it is best to have it done and over before next election. On the age of consent, I do not believe that it will deter the children from doing things with one another. But I do think that the age of consent for an adult to have sex, should be 18. There is no reason for adults having sex with younger children period. Nothing makes my blood boil more is when you see someone over twenty dating a 15 or 16 year old. While it may not be officially pedophilia, it is close enough in my books. When it is minors among minors the present age of 14 is as good as any, only becuase it is going to be broken any way if the kids decide to do it. I would suggest maybe better family values may be more of a solution then the law.

Hi My wife works as the desktop publisher for CCHSA(Canadian Concil Health Services Accreditation), and I can tell you that they are a non=profit agency, and yes, hospital accreditation is voluntary, but most Canadian hospitals of any size have been accredited. They also due the same for Nursing homes and all other health services. They are global in that many hospitals from other countries use them for accreditation. They themsleves have to be acreditated and have always been awarded the highest standings for their services. That is why they do Hospitals all over the world.

The $100 per month per child under 6 is not supposed to be a pay all, for the costs of day care. Remeber these kids have parents who are also responsible for contributing to the day care needs of there children. It is a method to help ease the costs of having young preschool chilren. It also is not the whole plan of the CPC childcare issue. The tax breaks for employers to setup daycare at the workplace will cover much of its total cost, so this will be something that many will do and make it a perk of the business. Those firms who want to keep young talent etc will want to do this and in that event it will benefit even the lower less sought after employees as well. Now, while I will admit $100 per month is not much, it probably represents about $400 per month per child of the liberals plan, where one level of government gives to another level, who will then disperse it to the municipal level etc. This will go directly to the enduser and the tax break for companies setting up daycare spaces is directly in their benefit. I do not know about the rest of the world but I think the conservative plan is the best. Also le me say it will not benefit me in any way as I am long past the age where I would have children, but yes I would consider my company using the tax incentives for providing workplace child care.

I believe that the liberal party was the biggest benefactor in all of this, so they should be sued not only for the return of all the money but also all the costs and expenses to get them to do so. I do not care if it bankrupts the party, or if in these efforts people will be ruined or jailed. It should be done simply because it is the right thing to do. It would be the just thing and the moral thing. Those who oppose this are probably the same ones who believe that it is okay to do these things, because everyone else does. I have little time and patience to that kind of thinking. you either follow the law or you don't. Sometimes when the law is unclear you always must give heft to the defenant. But the law in this is very clear and so is the fact about who benefited from these actions. We must proceed accordingly or admit to there being a double standard in the law for politicians.