Mimas

Perhaps you should spend some time to ponder before you type. Clearly the world's population has been growing without any subsidy required. People will have children regardless if someone pays them to do so. They will do so because nature have created biological urges and needs for them to do so. Frankly your argument that if we don't pay for people to raise kids, they won't is absurd. The almost unfettered growth of the world population proves this. Where are you getting that we will be faced with massive labour shortages? Care to post any references? Ponder what? That the only countries where the population is increasing are ones that are either ruled by religious tyrants or the population is completely uneducated and has absolutely no control over their reproductive functions. For those still living in the 50s, these days Canada and most of Europe have NEGATIVE natural rate of population growth. If the overall population growth is positive in some countries (like Canada), it is only due to immigration. The countries with the lowest birth rates (or largest decrease in population) in the world are those of the former USSR and Eastern Europe, where birth rates have fallen in half since 1990. And you know why? Because their governments are too broke and stopped offering substantial "subsidies" for raising children (like daycare and child benefits), so having children has become too expensive. You tell people it will cost them $500,000 to raise a child and that they won't get a penny for it and watch the birth rates dropping. Ponder this!!! "They will do so because nature have created biological urges and needs for them to do so." This is bullshit and you say it because you didn't do your homework again! Just because you wish it was true, doesn't make it so. Studies on the subject have actually shown that humans have no natural urges to have children. This is explained by the fact that "biological urges" to have children were never necessary in order to have children. All that's necessary is having sex. Humanoids simply ended up having children and most of them probably never even made the link between sex and having children. Tada! The only way to force people to have children is to ban contraceptives and abortions. Good luck with that!

Sure. $1200 to every parent with a kid under six sure sounds discriminatory. Just as much as 9-5 daycare (that still costs the user money, plus tens of thousands per spot for the taxpayer) discriminates against everyone that works outside 9-5, everyone that stays at home, and everyone that lives outside of a city. Both plans are equally ineffective... People should raise their own kids. The government has no business in the daycares of the nation. Seeing that it is the working people who will be paying the $1200, I don't see why their taxes cannot pay for daycare too. Seeing that you are 17, have no kids, and pay no taxes, you should shut up, mind your own business, and don't even imagine that you have the right to tell parents how to raise their children!

Harper asked Ed first precisely because Harper knew that Ed would decline the offer and for the optics of it of course. No credible person has accused Shapiro of being biased so far, although his qualifications have been questioned in the past. Only hypocritic cons would claim that Shapiro is a liberal lap-dog and only because he wants to do his job which includes investingating complaints about unethical actions by MPs, which includes his majesty Harper. If he wanted to investigate anyone outside the Con party, they would be cheering.

I can't believe how nearsighted, greedy and plain stupid you neo-cons are. It's simple: Paying people to stay home costs money! Paying people to stay home means fewer workers in the job market. Too few workers in the job market makes it more expensive and difficult to run a business. When it's difficult to run a business, business moves to China. Bussiness moving to China is bad news for the Canadian economy! Bad economy means that you are out of work. Being out of work is worse than paying taxes. It's that simple. If you took a single course in Economics it would be obvious to you. But you clearly didn't and you don't even have the common sense to realize that paying people to waste their potential and talents at home cannot be good for the economy. If this is too complicated for you to see, will you argue that closing primary and secondary schools in favour of paying people to home-school their children would be a good thing too? I saw nothing mcqueen625's post which said that he advocated PAYING people to stay home. For those who haven't had the chance to find out about the $1200 conservative daycare/family plan yet, it is essentially a subsidy for people who raise their children at home. In other words, it pays people to stay home.

The younger working generation will produce the food, and treat the retired generation because they will be PAID to do so. There are numerous industries from retirement homes to geriatric care which cater to taking care of the aged. These are not charity industries. Where there is a need an industry will fulfill it. I for one am not expecting the younger generation to fund my retirement, nor am I expecting that I shoud have to foot the bill for the care and feeding of children other than my own. "The younger working generation will produce the food, and treat the retired generation because they will be PAID to do so." Again, can you use your brain for a moment? This is not even a chicken and egg problem. Clearly, that younger generation has to be born and raised before they can be paid by you. This has to be done by their parents who won't benefit from the fact that you will be paying the kids for their services in the future. So, you have to foot the bill now, so that those parents will bear and raise children in the first place. If it's too darn expensive for people to have kids, they won't - that younger generation won't be there for you to pay them. The large expense of having children has already put a significant dent in Canadian demographics - the baby boomers are a much larger generation than those after them. This will lead to significant labour shortages once the baby boomers retire. If you think there is a shortage of doctors in the country now, wait until the boomers retire - there will be shortages in many other areas beside health care.

BE POLITE AND RESPECT OTHERS Mapleleafweb operates these forums in the hopes that they will promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion. We encourage you to speak your mind on relevant issues in a thoughtful way. Please respect others using this board and treat them with respect and dignity. I guess this doesn't apply to you. No, I have very little tolerance for lazy, greedy losers who spend their days on the internet ranting about "everyone else spending their tax dollars". If you prefer living in a dump with sewage running down the streets and illiterate armed hooligans running around to paying taxes, move to Uganda or Ethiopia and SHUT UP!

Yet another lazy Con, who is living on his wife's back. If you aren't a man to feed your family, what do you have against putting the kids in daycare, so that your wife could work during the day?

10 years later and the poor woman is still on nights! Why doesn't she get a day job now that the kids are in school and be there for the evening. So she gave up every evening for the past 10 years because you couldn't bag it? Guess it was your conservative "husband's right" to have sex without birthcontrol huh? IMO, give the woman a break -- you try the night shift for the next 10 years. LOL and Geoffrey says "nothin' wrong with that set up!" Hyuk Hyuk. On the news the other night -- a stay at home mom with a 2 year old, 1 year old twins, and one on the way. She's looking forward to spending the $5000 from the gov't on a vacation to Disneyland. Grrrreat! She's spending MY TAXPAYER DOLLARS in another friggin' country. Un-be-lievable. Another woman, same news broadcast. Is on a 3 year waiting list for daycare space. By the time she gets the space, she won't need it anymore. What a screwed up system the cons are putting in place. Give the "traditional" family a vacation in Disneyland -- while the "regular" family struggles to find a space for their child. The second family (the one looking for daycare space) pays much much more in taxes (2 income earners) than the glorified "traditional" family. Thats quite a feminist selfish attitude. Maybe the mother actually values her childs upbringing more than her selfish personal interest. It's obvious that you'd perfer a system where you give birth and thats the last you see of your kids other than a couple hours at night and the weekends. All in the name of 'women's right' to her selfish interest. How ridiculous. Ok, another dumbass. Numerous studies have shown that children who go to daycare do better in school and in social interactions later in life. Keeping your kids locked up at home is not to their benefit! You probably think it is but that's because you are brainwashed and it never occured to you to do you homework and read up on it. Your claims are just as stupid as saying that children are better off being home-schooled.

Ok, genious, I disagree. Mike Harris offered the exact same plan to employers in Ontario. And you know how many "seats" were created? Exactly ZERO. The daycare plan will increase the total number of seats if it is properly funded. If not it will just shift more spaces from private to public. But this is exactly the point. The grade 8 drop-out down the street with her basement full of toys is NOT daycare!

You lazy leech (or is that your stay-at-home wife) already get plenty of government assistance. It's called the National Child Benefit and pays as much as $6,000 per child per year. A daycare program is assistance for people who want to work and pay taxes. The Conservative $1200 is WELFARE for lazy parents who don't want to work and want to live off other WORKING people's taxes! You conservative hypocrites go nuts when someone says that every Canadian should have food to put on the table even when one is unemployed, but when it comes to welfare for perfectly healthy capable adults who use their children as an excuse for not working it's a wonderful idea, eh? You make me want to puke!

I can't believe how nearsighted, greedy and plain stupid you neo-cons are. It's simple: Paying people to stay home costs money! Paying people to stay home means fewer workers in the job market. Too few workers in the job market makes it more expensive and difficult to run a business. When it's difficult to run a business, business moves to China. Bussiness moving to China is bad news for the Canadian economy! Bad economy means that you are out of work. Being out of work is worse than paying taxes. It's that simple. If you took a single course in Economics it would be obvious to you. But you clearly didn't and you don't even have the common sense to realize that paying people to waste their potential and talents at home cannot be good for the economy. If this is too complicated for you to see, will you argue that closing primary and secondary schools in favour of paying people to home-school their children would be a good thing too?

Haha...Is this a serious question or a really nearsighted and retarded question? Assuming it's the second, taxpayers should foot the bill because bearing and raising children benefits taxpayers. If people stop having children, who is going to take care of you fool when you get older? Or do you plan to die before you turn 60? These children will produce the food you'll eat, will treat you when you are sick, and will take care things you won't be able to take care of. So, you should foot the bill, pay to have them raised properly, pay to have them educated properly, because you wouldn't want your doctor to be a mentally disturbed, grade 9 drop-out So have some respect for the children and for others in general you greedy selfish con!

"There is no issue here." Say what? The fact that we are sending more and more of our troops to a country that the Soviets could not put in order even in 20 years? It took them 20 years and several thousand casualties to realize that Afganistan is a hopeless case. How long, how many casualties and how many billions of $$ will it take us to realize the same? And that's no issue? So there is no point in even discussing it? That's a rather strange thing coming from a con, who claims to support the troops and the fiscally responsible.

Ok are you just dumb or simply brainwashed? Whether you go to war or not has absolutely nothing to do with supporting our troops! In fact, not getting your troops killed in stupid "wars" IS supporting the troops. Why would anyone, including Layton, want to disgrace our troops? Are you nuts or just stupid for making such a rediculous comment? Or you neo-cons now figure that the way to defend your stupid decisions to fight stupid wars is to accuse those who oppose them of being unpatriotic and of disgracing our troops? This may have worked in the US well, but don't bet on it working in Canada!

She never mentions who that was. Who was it? Kim Campbell? It was Audrey McLaughlin you genious!

No he is not! Are you deaf? He must be elected in order to qualify for the job! That's how democracy works. Ministers are appointed in dictatorships! Before you get pissy with me (though we may have crossed that threshold already) you keep mentioning that in order to be "qualified" for a cabinet position you must be elected. This is despite the fact that our Parliamentary history allows this to occur. This qualification, where exactly does it arise from? I'm not trying to be cute but you continually ignore this question and its important. Before you go stating how this is the way it should be you should be aware of the role Parliamentary Convention plays in our system. Do you know what constitutional document mentions the powers that the Prime Minister of Canada holds? No where. That's right, its merely through convention that the PM holds any power whatsoever. What about cabinet? It doesn't exist in our constitution either. My point is please, oh please, tell me where this "qualification" arises, other then in your mind. I'm not saying your not entitled to your opinion on the subject but I doubt you entirely appreciate how our government operates. Where this qualification arises is in common law. In it, when a written or oral contract is broken, the guilty party must compensate the other party for its losses arising from the braking of the contract. A party platform is a contract signed by a political party when it's published and by the voter, who signs it by voting for that party. When its violated, the voter should be compensated, i.e. the least that can be done is to have Fortier run in a by-election. Finally, Fortier did not sign the contract by not running behind it, and the voter didn't sign it either, because no voter voted for him. Now is that a satisfactory explanation? Obviously the commonly accepted principle that one must keep his word doesn't mean anything to you. I guess that's a conservative trait too. Also you can check Fortier's interview on Monday's broadcast www.cbc.ca/politics , where Fortier says that he doesn't know much about Public Works.

No he is not! Are you deaf? He must be elected in order to qualify for the job! That's how democracy works. Ministers are appointed in dictatorships! Before you get pissy with me (though we may have crossed that threshold already) you keep mentioning that in order to be "qualified" for a cabinet position you must be elected. This is despite the fact that our Parliamentary history allows this to occur. This qualification, where exactly does it arise from? I'm not trying to be cute but you continually ignore this question and its important. Before you go stating how this is the way it should be you should be aware of the role Parliamentary Convention plays in our system. Do you know what constitutional document mentions the powers that the Prime Minister of Canada holds? No where. That's right, its merely through convention that the PM holds any power whatsoever. What about cabinet? It doesn't exist in our constitution either. My point is please, oh please, tell me where this "qualification" arises, other then in your mind. I'm not saying your not entitled to your opinion on the subject but I doubt you entirely appreciate how our government operates. Where this qualification arises is in common law. In it, when a written or oral contract is broken, the guilty party must compensate the other party for its losses arising from the braking of the contract. A party platform is a contract signed by a political party when it's published and by the voter, who signs it by voting for that party. When its violated, the voter should be compensated, i.e. the least that can be done is to have Fortier run in a by-election. Finally, Fortier did not sign the contract by not running behind it, and the voter didn't sign it either, because no voter voted for him. Now is that a satisfactory explanation? Obviously the commonly accepted principle that one must keep his word doesn't mean anything to you. I guess that's a conservative trait too.

Mimas, I don't get what you're saying here. "Thousands" of Canadians are better qualified? In what way exactly? What is it specifically that you disagree with? Fortier's personal qualifications? Fair enough, list them. The fact that he was appointed a senator, on the basis that Harper campaigned against this? Fair enough, though as I mentioned before it brings the question as to how Harper deals with any senator at this point. Is it that Fortier is not elected? Historically its happened before, so is it just that Harper used this convention? Well, someone suggested earlier that Fortier is qualified for the job. I don't see that he is because being elected is a prerequisite for a cabinet seat. Besides he has no previous experience in running a government department, while many others do. Harper specifically said on TV that if Montreal did not elect a Conservative, he would not appoint anyone to cabinet to represent the city because he "believed that cabinet should be made up of ELECTED representatives". Also, the Conservative party and it's predicesors have long argued that the law on appointing senators did not have to change in order to have elected senators. Have people run for available senate seats and then appoint those who win in the election. Now that they are in government they suddenly completely forgot about that. Finally, as I already mentioned, Harper did not run on having things done as they have been done BEFORE. He ran on CHANGE. Over 50% of those who voted Conservative in the last election voted that way because they wanted CHANGE. Appointing friends and turncoats to cabinet is NOT the kind of CHANGE they voted for! Liberal or Tory - SAME OLD STORY Can you find a transcript of that Harper quote on TV??? Yes, it's about 28 minutes into Tuesday's broadcast. http://www.cbc.ca/politics/

Geez, you disgust me! Call a spade, a spade. You claim to have principals and screamed at the top of you lungs when the Liberals violated any of them, but now that the Conservatives are doing it, you suddenly have forgotten that you had principals. That's eigher really short memory on your behalf or just hypocrisy!

No he is not! Are you deaf? He must be elected in order to qualify for the job! That's how democracy works. Ministers are appointed in dictatorships!

Mimas, I don't get what you're saying here. "Thousands" of Canadians are better qualified? In what way exactly? What is it specifically that you disagree with? Fortier's personal qualifications? Fair enough, list them. The fact that he was appointed a senator, on the basis that Harper campaigned against this? Fair enough, though as I mentioned before it brings the question as to how Harper deals with any senator at this point. Is it that Fortier is not elected? Historically its happened before, so is it just that Harper used this convention? Well, someone suggested earlier that Fortier is qualified for the job. I don't see that he is because being elected is a prerequisite for a cabinet seat. Besides he has no previous experience in running a government department, while many others do. Harper specifically said on TV that if Montreal did not elect a Conservative, he would not appoint anyone to cabinet to represent the city because he "believed that cabinet should be made up of ELECTED representatives". Also, the Conservative party and it's predicesors have long argued that the law on appointing senators did not have to change in order to have elected senators. Have people run for available senate seats and then appoint those who win in the election. Now that they are in government they suddenly completely forgot about that. Finally, as I already mentioned, Harper did not run on having things done as they have been done BEFORE. He ran on CHANGE. Over 50% of those who voted Conservative in the last election voted that way because they wanted CHANGE. Appointing friends and turncoats to cabinet is NOT the kind of CHANGE they voted for! Liberal or Tory - SAME OLD STORY

What happened before doesn't matter. The Conservatives did NOT run on the same old, same old. They ran on CHANGE. If there is any CHANGE in this story is that Fortier does NOT want to run in a by-election for his seat in cabinet and that noone has crossed the floor this early after an election before. Liberal or Tory - SAME OLD STORY

No, that's not my point. Senators don't matter all that much anyway. My point is that he must NOT appoint cabinet ministers! Senior cabinet ministers are the dozen or so most powerful politicians in the country and they have control of hundreds of billions of our tax dollars. Cabinet ministers MUST be elected! There are 100 Conservative ELECTED MPs, he MUST choose from. Why isn't Diane Ablonczy in cabinet for example? She's been on the front benches of the Conservative caucus forever. He threw her in the backbenches to put a friend in cabinet? The optics of this are just terrible! He's enraged voters and his own caucus! This goes against everything he campaigned on. If Fortier performs admirably in controlling "hundreds of billions of our tax dollars" (which we will have to wait and see) is that not better than an elected Minister losing track of a billion (Jane Stewart HRDC) or than a bunch of elected Ministers telling Parliament 2 million for the gun registry and failing to tell the House when the number was actually at 2 billion etc. etc. What is your view of the Prime Minister of Canada being "elected" (read appointed) by a few hundred members of his or her political party when there is a leadership change? (a la Paul Martin if you'll recall). In my view it's no different than what is happening here...temporary appointment, with ratification in front of the people of Canada to come. Also, the fact that "senators don't matter all that much anyway" is exactly one of the reforms Harper hopes to make happen, and as Sage points out, until that reform happens, he has to use the current system. FTA What kind of a silly excuse is this? If Fortier performs admirably...blah, blah. Did Gagliano perform admirably? When did we find out he didn't? TEN YEARS AFTER THE FACT! When are we going to find out if Fortier doesn't perform admirably? He doesn't even have voters to worry about. He is just another arrogant cronie who could not be bothered to run in the election and who can't be bothered to run in a by-election for his seat in cabinet. On top of that Stephen Harper, in appointing Fortier (and Emerson) has substantially gone against four declared party policies. He also broke an explicit promise made, in Quebec, on Radio-Canada (TV). When asked "What if you see no Conservatives elected in Montreal? Will you appoint a Cabinet Minister for the city?" Harper replied, smiling, "No, I've always believed that Cabinet positions should be filled from *elected* members of parliament". Liberal or Tory - Same old story!

Even if they're qualified? What do you mean if they are qualified? Thousands of Canadians are better qualified than Fortier to do the job. Being elected is a prerequisite to be qualified for a seat in Cabinet!

Harper sees the path to a majority in 2008 runs straight through Montreal and he is going for it. Chantal is a separatist. I would trust her word as much as I trust Duseppe...that is, I don't.