Nocrap

- ROTFPIMPALMFARO!!! - I'm not sure which is funnier ... the notion of ALLCRAP "researching" Iggy or anyone or anyrthing else or, the notion that anyone with an IQ in even double digits could pick a political neophyte like Ignatieff over the former two term governor of California and two term president of the US like Reagan who is now conceeded even by liberal historians to have been the greatest of all US presidents since WWII. - The Globe and Mail's resident left wing columnist and one of my least favourite columnists today wrote one of his rare columns with which I actually agree (other than his usual lefty slant on Iraq). Here it is: Take yer lumps, Iggy RICK SALUTIN From Friday's Globe and Mail *Note - remove due to copyright infringment Ok. twice you've told me that the Globe and Mail is a partisan paper, so I prefer not to form my opinions based on anything in that, or any other newpapers. I'm combing through things that Ignatieff wrote himself, before I form an opinion. I never liked Ronald Reagan and remember him best for his Iran-contra deal. I never chose Arnold Schwarzenegger, because well, he's Arnold Schwarzenegger. Not a big fan. The question was to choose one of the three, and to date he has no baggage for me. So perhaps the question should have been, who irks you the least? My answer would still be Iggy.

Fixer1 - Please enlighten me. Is the information at Elections Canda listing the $5,000 contributors inaccurate? I googled the names and most can be traced to the oil industry or private healthcare. That is fact and I have posted many of them before. The National Citizens' Coalition boasts of being the brainchild behind the victories of Stephen Harper (his initial bid in Calagary), Mike Harris and Brian Mulroney, amoung others. Are they not being truthful? Stephen Harper himself has said that much of the Reform Party Policy he wrote came from the NCC's handbook. Is he not being honest? Their former president Somerville claims that they 'cribbed' 2/3. Perhaps he's not being honest. The 'gag law' that the NCC opposed (see Harper vs the Attorney General) was the law that made third party political campaign groups 'accountable', in the same way that those running for office were. The same limits on spending and transparency in contributions. Recently the NCC vice-president Nicholls stated that Stephen Harper SIGNED a contract with him promising to overturn the 'gag law' if elected PM. If he manages to do this, the NCC will once again be given free reign to spend thousands on negative ad campaigns during elections. You are right though. I like the CPC as much as you like the Liberals, and I rather doubt that my post will really influence votes either way. Just expressing my fact based opinion.

It is a FICTION! If he had written an expose on government spending within the Ministry, or specifically mentioned co-workers, it would be a different story. Because of the genre of the book I would never buy it or read it. I'm sure Ford would have no problem with an employee writing a fictional account of flying cars. People concerned with global warming will still be concerned with global warming, with or without the publication of a FICTIONAL book. There are already lots of non-fiction books on the subject. Harper's decision to censor it, will only peak Canadians interests and if the author takes it to the Supreme Court and wins the right to have it published, you can be sure it will be a bestseller, even if it is absolute garbage. Controversy sells and Mr. Harper has given him free publicity. As far as the author using taxpayer's money to research the effects of global warming, it's highly unlikely. In his position he is probably well educated with a strong scientific background, so brings more to the job than he takes out. And yes I still believe that Civil Servants should have the same rights as all Canadian citizens. Should we also take away their right to vote? He is showing a sign of weakness when he is afraid of a book that will not even have mass appeal (though it probably will now).

Apollo, Thank you for the comments on my post, but I must take issue with a few statements. A few seats in Ontario isn't going to cut it for the Liberals. The CPC is currently building up their power in Ontario, not losing it. It will take a very results oriented leader in order to take the CPC out of power. Iggy is more idealistic, and people just are more for people promising results than people with vision in today's world. The seats are more under represented in BC than anywhere else, by a huge margin. But your right, Ontario is likely to benefit too, and mostly in Liberal friendly areas. I don't see many people seriously thinking that Alberta would become the political capital. Not happening. From an economic perspective however, Calgary is definitely the driving force behind the Canadian economy now, and for many more reasons than just oil. Ontario is losing relevance without a doubt, but they are a long way from becoming irrelevant in the financial picture. That doesn't change the fact that Albertans per capita contribute considerably more into confederation than anyone else, and see the least back. The Calgary to Edmonton corridor is has been reported to be the richest region in the world (though I dispute this somewhat). Back towards the topic, the Liberals need a leader that clearly outlines what the party will do for them. They are currently viewed as a party without a clear agenda. We all know what the Liberals stand for, but what will they do to better my life? When? How? This is why the conservatives are succeeding and will continue to do so. No one wants another Trudeau right now, with dreams of grandeaur for Canada and a great national vision (that only resulted in alienating the West and Quebec further). People want results for themselves and their family. Iggy doesn't offer this. Sorry. I meant to put it in Federal Politics but am still stumbling around and I guess I stumbled in here. Source for my poll Latest Results If that doesn't work go to the homepage and scroll down. There are two polls currently in progress. Home Page I'm not really a great believer or follower of polls, but was reading something else there, so I thought what the heck? This just represents the results as of today, so many of you can go over and vote and change the results - I rarely visit that site. Besides, even official polls are accused of being pro-Liberal or pro-CPC, so I guess they don't mean much.

Oops. I hit the button before typing my message. I had never thought of the Liberals uniting with the NDP, but it is an interesting concept. They are closer in their views than either is to the CPC. Unite the Left. I say go for it. That way I won't have to decide whether to vote Liberal or NDP.

Actually, if you go to elections Canada website and google some of those 'private' contributions, you will see the corporations behind the CPC. $20,000.00 from Power Corporation alone- Father, mother, son, daughter. The Liberals did the same thing, the CPC just have far more corporate CEO's and their families all giving the maximum. Therefore, it really doesn't matter whether Corps. can't contribute because there is more than one way to skin a cat. My point with the NCC is that their campaigns are DEFINITELY PARTISAN, and they do (by their own bragging rights) influence elections. Therefore, if Mr. Harper sticks to his WRITTEN promise to NCC VP and somehow gets rid of what they call the "gag law", it won't matter who contributes to the CPC or how much, because the NCC can do the campaigning for them. That is my point.

Some working parents already rely on subsidized childcare, but that could be scrapped, meaning that they could no longer afford to go to work. I'm not merely objecting to the name, but the entire concept. I do volunteer work and one family comes to mind. Mother and father work - she is a cleaner at the hospital and he works at Harvey's. Their three children are clean and well cared for; the eldest just came in second in a regional spelling bee. All are polite and well mannered and by all accounts will grow up to be good tax paying citizens, because they have excellent role models. Because none of their children are under six they will not receive any of the 'childcare' benefit, but still require childcare before and after school, summer holidays, etc. They are terrified that if the federal government no longer supports a childcare subsidy, one of them will have to stay home or look for a part-time job, so that they can be home when their children are. They cannot afford a reduction in income, because they are barely able to make ends meet now. These are some of the people who will suffer under Harper's plan. On the other hand, let's say a couple have two children under six. One parent stays home and the other earns 100,000 per year. Under the Harper plan they will get to KEEP $2400.00 per year because the lower (in this case non) wage earner gets to claim the handout. Is this a fair system?

ALLCRAP ... The reason I have named you ALLCRAP is that when it comes to your comments concerning PM Harper and the CPC pretty much everything you have to say is a bold faced lie. Nowhere is your duplicity and deception - not to mention your delusions derived from your obsessive animus to Harper and the CPC - more evident than in this ridiculous thread. You begin with ALL CRAP concerning the Accountability Act and continue to dig yourself into an even deeper hole. Your ridiculous comments in this latest post on Harper, Baird and the non-partisan political action group called the NCC are not worth my time in response. But I have decided to respond to your comments on polls because ANYONE HERE WHO CAN READ AND REASON will immediately see that you are a complete and utter liar. Polls, you see, are quantitative and therefore lies are IMMEDIATELY VERIFIABLE. Here is the latest poll taken just a week ago by a respected and long time Liberal favourite polling organization Environics as published in The Globe and Mail on April 6th. For the benefit of yourself and any other left-lib learning impaired ideologues, I have printed the salient portions in bold font. Having caught you out in your deliberate falsifications here, I am not interested in wasting my time time any further debating the matter with you. I'll leave that to others who may suffer fools, liars and left-lib lunatic fringers better than I do. 4/6/2006 6:15:50 PM Stephen Harper and his new government solidify voter support across the country as they begin to govern. OTTAWA: Weeks into their new mandate, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government have solidified its support among Canadians, according to a new survey by the Environics Research Group conducted in March. Party Support. This latest survey shows that, nationally, 41 percent of eligible and decided Canadian voters would support the Conservative Party if an election were held today, compared with the 36 percent it earned in the January 23rd federal election. The Liberal Party, now under interim leadership, has seen its support drop to 22 percent (down 8 points), and is now in a statistical tie with the New Democratic Party, which has seen its support edge upwards to 21 percent (up 3 points). Support for the Bloc Québécois in Quebec is stable at 44 percent (up 2 points). Relatively few (13%) voters are currently undecided about which party might deserve their support. Approval of Party Leaders. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has earned solid public approval in his first months in office, with 60 percent of Canadians expressing approval of the job he has done to date. This marks a dramatic jump from the 33 percent who approved of his performance as Opposition Leader last fall. Just under three in ten (28%) now disapprove of his performance, while 12 percent cannot say either way. New Interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham’s individual approval rating is 35 percent, but just as many (35%) cannot offer any assessment of him at this point in time. Thirty-one percent express disapproval. NDP Leader Jack Layton receives the approval of 58 percent of Canadians, essentially unchanged since last Fall, compared with 29 percent who disapprove. Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe has earned 59 percent approval ratings in Quebec, down slightly from last fall, compared with 35 percent who disapprove. Why the Conservatives Won. The survey also asked Canadians why they thought the federal Conservative Party won the last election and are now forming a new government in Ottawa. More than half share the view that the outcome was because of widespread dissatisfaction with the previous Liberal government (54%), while more than a third (37%) said there was a general feeling it was time for a change. By comparison, only five percent of Canadians said they thought the Conservatives won this election because of their platform or policies. This perspective is largely the same across supporters of the different parties. Will the New Government be Different? Canadians are evenly divided on whether they expect the new Harper government will be similar or different from the previous Liberal government. Half (50%) think it will be fairly similar in many ways, while a slightly smaller percentage (45%) believe it will offer very different policies. Expectations for a very different type of government are modestly stronger among those who would currently support the Conservatives (53%) or Bloc Québécois (50%), than among those supporting the Liberals (40%) and NDP (42%). Undecided voters are the least apt to share this view (33%). For further information, please contact: Keith Neuman, Ph.D., Group Vice President – Public Affairs, Environics Research Group (613) 230-5089 [email protected] Methodology These results are taken from an Environics survey of 2,035 Canadians aged 18 and older, conducted in English and French between March 9 and 31, 2006. On a national basis, these results are accurate to within +/-2.2 percentage points, in 95 out of 100 samples. Questions (English): If a Canadian federal election were held today, which one of the following parties would you vote for [ROTATE PARTIES] the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party, or [Quebec Only] the Bloc Québécois? [if “Undecided” ask] Perhaps you have not yet made up your mind; is there nevertheless a party you might be inclined to support? Please tell me if you approve or disapprove of the way the following party leaders are doing their jobs: [READ AND ROTATE] Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham, NDP Leader Jack Layton, or Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe? Thinking back to the January 23rd election, which of the following do you believe is the main reason why we have a new government in Ottawa today. Is it because of: READ AND ROTATE 01 and 02 Dissatisfaction with the previous government, Support for the new government’s platform and policies, or a belief it is simply time for a change Do you think the new government led by Stephen Harper will have very different policies and directions than the previous Liberal government, or do you think its policies will end up being similar in many ways to the previous government? I read your explanation of how you got your handle, well here's mine. NOCRAP stands for No Conservative Reform Alliance Party, and it is simply my silent protest of a Reform Party hybrid calling themselves Tories. The ship has sailed on how Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper masterminded this, and I no longer really care. The name just reminds me everyday not to look at CPC policy from a Tory point of view, but from the Reform Party/Alliance point of view. Fortunately in a democracy, I'm allowed to do this. Whenever you challenge anything I have to say you always claim that it is not worth your time in response, but follow with paragraphs of diatribe, so I can only assume that I've hit a nerve. I believe that you are from New Brunswick. So am I (Grandfalls) and have an aunt in Chatham. I've lived in Ontario for decades now so am not up to date on NB politics. However, I'm sure that the province has it's share of corrupt government officials. Now picture in your mind one NB politician that you would love to see behind bars, and then imagine them standing beside the PM announcing an accountability act. The NCC are not non-partisan. Google 'Operation Porkchop'. Mike Harris and the NCC (Conservative). Brian Mulroney and the NCC (Conservative) Stephen Harper and the NCC (CPC) "Gag Law" and the NCC (Reform/CPC). However, I do respect your opinion so if you could provide a link to an NCC campaign that helped the Liberals or the NDP, I will be sure to check it out. And thank you for not using profanity this time. Calling me a Left-Lib Liar is much more civil.

It would seem then your entire argument of it being economically beneficial depends upon providing the childcare to welfare mothers. Do you agree that providing subsidized childcare to non-welfare parents does not make economic sense? It is not just for 'welfare' parents and is only subsidized for those who cannot afford it. It is income based and not only ensures that you can go to work, but that you can continue to work. $1200.00 per year does neither. Stay at home parents do need a break, but again, add it to the income-based Child Tax Credit, if the taxpayers feel that it is justified. Personally, as a taxpayer, I would rather money go to programs that allow Canadians to share the tax burden. If one parent decides to stay home with the children, I applaud that. If the government wants to give them a reward for this, I'm all for it. However, if the working parent is pulling in a hundred grand, then they already have the financial opportunity to pay an outsider when they need to get out of the house. Income based additional Child Tax Credit for stay at home parents - Yes. $1200.00 family allowance for everyone with children under six, regardless of income and calling it a Childcare Plan - No Way!

Not true. An MP is almost always voted by party. People in Vancouver couldn't care less about Emerson - they voted Liberal. The CPC had a very poor showing in the city and this was just a way for Harper to rub their noses in it.

I didn't say you were unaware of the cost of childcare; I said you were unaware of the amount of the taxpayer subsidy. As long as the childcare cost is more than zero, there will always be a portion who worry about the cost, so in the subsidized childcare scheme it will open up some spots to some parents, but the rest will still have a cost issue. Does it make sense to you for the government to spend $7000 to subsidize a childcare spot, so that a mother can earn $7000 and pay at best $1000 in taxes? It doesn't make sense to me either. Your argument that the government should subsidize childcare so that the parent will work and pay taxes, only makes sense if the taxes collected outweigh the cost of the subsidy. Do you have any evidence to show that it will? In Quebec, the numbers I've seen show that the government only recoups $0.40 in generated taxes for every $1 it spends subsidizing. Doesn't make economic sense does it? The payment is made to you as guardian, not to your grandson. It is yours to spend, not his. You may choose to put it in his account, which is apparently the route you chose. You make an argument that it is "his money" and the choice is out of your hands, but this is simply not true. If you think there is a higher priority use for the money, you are free to use it that way. Apparently soliders or whatever else is not priority. Again, you show that your perception is that he government only contributes $100/month to childcare cost. Again, do you know the average childcare cost? Do you know how much is already paid by the taxpayer? It is interesting that you seem critical that parents are not spending it on childcare. Certainly you have stated that you don't intend to. So I ask again, is your biggest problem in the name of this plan, that you feel it is falsely labeled? I won't be using it for childcare because first off, I don't need childcare and secondly, if I did need childcare, this would not pay for it. The idea of a National Childcare/Daycare program is about availability and affordability. We only subsidize those who need it and ONLY IF IT ALLOWS THEM TO WORK. It is income based, as it should be. Again, working people pay taxes. You argue that it could cost as much as $7,000.00 per child to taxpayers, so that their parents can pay $ 1,000.00 in taxes. This would mean a loss of $6,000.00 - $1200.00 handout. Taxpayers are to the good $ 4,800.00; right? Except that if that person was unable to work and not pay taxes, but instead had to rely on social assistance, it would be a whole new ballgame. In Ontario a single mother with one child receives $ 1,249.00 per month; a cost to taxpayers of $ 14,988.00 per year. She probably wont' get the $1200.00; but it still puts us in the hole. Again, it is just the old Family Allowance program all over again, and should not replace a proper program; one that I might add, Canadians havel already invested millions into, to get it up and running. OOPs! My spelling is terrible today. My grandson was up most of the night with the croup, and I'm afraid I'm typing with one eye open.

Scwarzennegger! Only him can tell the whiners to "grow up you girly men!" with a straight face. Ignatieff. I'm still researching the guy, but so far, so good. Maybe you should start a poll.

That one blew me away too. However, I agree with August1991. We need to remove the criminal element. The effects of any addiction are devastating, whether they are legal substances or not. Insurance companies raise premiums for people with dangerous lifestyles and offer discounts to non-smokers and abstainers, so adding drug addicts to the list would not be morally wrong, but justifiable. Whether our public heathcare system should treat them differently though is another matter. Addiction is an illness and should be given the same consideration as any illness.

Day job? Call me old-fashioned but it seems to me that if a person accepts to work for the civil service, and the duty to undertake the public's business, and exercice all the authority and perks that provides, then one gives up the right to express personal opinions in public. I would not want to face a tax collector, a policeman or a judge who had written an article opposing Internet forums and the people who post to them. When we deal with government bureaucrats, we should expect impartiality. If this guy wants to write controversial novels, he should resign and find another day job. Call me old-fashioned but it seems to me that if a person accepts to work for the civil service, and the duty to undertake the public's business, and exercice all the authority and perks that provides, then one gives up the right to express personal opinions in public.

Yes, I can see where the making of hypocritical statements would be something you would admire. You don't get branded on your forehead with a big "L" because you once worked as a lobbyist. O'Connor was a general for decades, and then worked as a lobbyist for a few years. He no longer works as a lobbyist. He has a new job. It's funny that the left made no noises about the Liberals being loyal to companies they actually OWNED, and dismissed such suggestions from everyone else, but seems to have this bizarre idea that O'Connor now belongs, heart and soul, to a lobbying firm he worked for briefly. Not with most of us. We recognized that the former Ethics Commisioner was a Liberal Party hack. I don't think anyone sane thought that "government appointments" meant "cabinet ministers" Do you think jobs in cabinet should be put out to bid or something? That they shouldn't go to Party members!? Oh right. He should have turned down all corporate cash while the Liberals were having cash stuffed into their pockets from every bank on Bay street, not to mention having it handed across the tables to them by the bagful by Quebec ad agencies. With the new rules, you can be content that he won't be taking money from Alberta Pipeline any more. I would have thought you lefties would be happy at the removal of corporate cash from election financing instead of whining about what happened before the rules were in place. The NCC is not a political party. You are going through a rather tortuous exercise in twisted logic to try and make Harper look hypocritical here. I'm afraid it only reflects badly on you. Why does everyone assume that if you are not a Harper supporter, than you must support Liberal corruption? I'm left of centre and support honest government. The NCC is not a political party but a third party group that has had tremendous success in getting their favourites elected. They have taken credit for not only Stephen Harper's original victory in Calgary using what they referred to as the "gag law" campaign, but also Brian Mulroney and Mike Harris. (And yes I will get you the links if you like. It's not a secret) Since Mr. Harper has signed a deal with the NCC promising to stop the "gag law" for third party campaign groups, it's business as usual. However, when I see Stephen Harper standing beside John Baird, a man who cheated Ontarians out of millions of dollars (see Boondoggle Schmoondoggle), I can't take a wait and see approach, now that Baird has a larger budget. He refused to expalin his actions to Ontario's Auditor, so how can I believe that he will be accountable to the Auditor General? If you found out that a co-worker had served time for murder, you might want to give him/her a chance, but you will also watch your back. I'm watching my back. And as to the 60-40 split, the recent poll states that 40% will vote CPC, 35% Liberal and the remaining 25% split between NDP and Green Party. Harper does not have a 60% approval rating.

This really is an overstatement of what has happened. Mr. Harper has enough to do in starting up a new government without having to initiate processes with the previous adminstation's ethics office - an office that is really a lame duck now. His measures are stronger than what was in place before, and they will improve the political process in Canada far and above the US process. Yup !!!! and then some. I won't get into the Emerson mess (it's all over the net), but he sure got O'Connor in there before he passed, or tried to pass his Lobbyist rule O'Connor Like I say, it would have meant more if he didn't have a 'not so former' Lobbyist slap dab in the middle of his cabinet. And he hasn't even got into his appointments of Baird/Flaherty/Clement; key players in one of the most corrupt governments Ontario has ever had. He needs Ontario for a majority, but won't get it that way. As to his lowering of personal contributions, after signing the deal with Nicholls and the NCC, like I posted, they will be able to do his dirty work and it won't cost him a dime.

Guaranteed election loss right there. I hope he wins and runs with it. We don't even need to bring up his Ukrainophobia or stances on torture - his arrogance is all Harper needs to pull off a majority. LOL, if he should get the leadership, the campaign ads for the next election should be really interesting. (Godfrey is bowing out of the race now). check this out for some decent Rex Murphy commentary, about 43 minutes in.. http://www.cbc.ca/clips/national/thenational.ram Like it or not, Ignatieff is still a strong candidate. Mainstream Canadians are centre to centre-left, and will never jump off the deepend at the right side of the pool. We gave the Liberals their time-out for misbehaving and it will be a completely different contest next time around. What is interesting is that the media is not pitting Ignatieff against other Liberal hopefuls, so much as they are pitting him against Stephen Harper. A recent poll shows that if there were an election today, 40% would vote CPC and 35% Liberal - and the Liberals don't even have a leader. If they get a strong opponent, look out!

I'm all for an accountability act, so long as it means that he too must be held accountable. However, I believe the topic here was his handling of the media. Since he maintains this 'cloak and dagger' approach to politics, he leaves himself open to media scrutiny. If he won't give them a believable stroy (and not just Hill & knowlton sound bites), they have to report something. If that means attacking his ponch or his attire, than so be it. Canadians elected the CPC to office and want to know how and what they are doing. I hope they pick away at him until he once again makes government transparent; allows MP's elected to speak for us, speak; and prove that he can handle a little criticism -a must for anyone in political office.

To me it would seem more prudent to be open with the media then risk having them go past the press conference room. As to his spare tire - couldn't care less but his reheated Bush speech left me unimpressed. As to his hunting vest in Mexico - he looked like the President of the National Citizens' Coalition - not the Prime Minister of Canada.

Cost of saving 89.5 million dollars - 193 million dollars. Cost of purchasing unreliable and expensive computer equipment - 500 million dollars. Added cost of computer glich that sent cheques to ineligible recipients - 2.1 million dollars. John Baird talking about accountability - PRICELESS. Further to the article from the Canadian Press on the new act, John Baird spoke out stating that the 'Price of accountability is priceless'. No that was not a thunderstorm you heard last night but a few million Ontarians laughing out loud. I can't believe that he used the term 'boondoggle' twice in his speech when he was behind one of the largest boondoggles in the history of our province. 500 Million Dollar Boondoggle Toronto Star - "Critics of the Mike Harris government are up in arms over a $200 million privatization "boondoggle" in which a private company called Accenture (formerly Andersen Consulting) was hired to overhaul the Ontario welfare system Baird said some of the unexpected cost were caused by a new computer system and other measures aimed at reducing duplication and fraud. Provincial Auditor Erik Peters first criticized the contract in 1998, citing a lack of accountability for fee expenses ranging as high as $600 an hour." Ottawa Citizen October 2001 ...Accenture received millions of dollars before any savings occurred; that the government can't yet clearly say what the final cost, or savings, will be; that it is unclear that any savings will come from this at all; that computer crashes have been rampant. The editorial came to the conclusion that high-priced consultants are just that - high priced, and that "if a service truly needs to be provided by government, then government should do the job. The government defended the scheme, saying that though there were problems in the first two years, those problems have been dealt with and the contract is unning smoothly, providing a huge windfall for taxpayers according to Social Services Minister John Baird In December 2001, the Provincial Auditor laid waste to the claims that the contract has been running smoothly over the previous two years, saying that the cost ratio of having Accenture do the work rather than public servants was 6 to 1 and that in 2000 the Province realized savings of $89.5 million [much of this from the continued gutting of access to welfare payments], but the government had paid Accenture $193 million. This statement of the Auditor General was part of a larger condemnation of the Tory government's overuse of private consultants throughout its Departments Toronto Star - Jul 10, 2004: "So John Baird thinks it's "laughable" to point the finger at him or the former Conservative government for the $500 million computer boondoggle that has stalled a long-awaited raise in support payments for people with disabilities. Not too much of a shock that Accenture were heavy contributors to the Ontario Tories - Hamilton Spectator ['Briefly' Section] "Tory Welfare Donations Under Fire" October 25, 2001; and "Consulting Firm Boosts PC Coffers, Toronto Star, October 25th, 2001) And now for the rest of the story - Accenture, formerly Anderson Consulting were behind the whole Enron scandal, which is why they changed their name. Mike Harris is now a director at Accenture and John Baird is now in charge of the Canadian Treasury. Like leaving a fox in charge of the henhouse. What was Harper thinking?

So the Liberals started the initiative? Just what we need - more bureaucracy. I posted here once before that there is more than one way to take money from corporations. Go to elections Canada and google a few of the names of the CPC's contributors. Husband/wife/children of CEO's all donating the maximum. The Liberals did the same thing . The CPC just MORE. I won't argue that an Accountability Act is a welcome thing, but stand by my opinion that it would carry more weight if Harper was actually 'accountable' for his own actions. Just 3 months in office and he has broken every ethical and accountable rule in the book. Not allowing his caucus to speak to the media makes me wonder what it is he doesn't want us to know. Transparency? Not with this government. Accountability? Not with this government. Ethics? Not with this government. But thanks for the article. It was very generous of you.

I've never been to the site but could someone please tell me what 'trolling' is? I'm relatively new to the whole forum concept, but enjoy a good debate. Sounds like 'Rabble' was not a good place to go.

What happens if a Party's leadership ends up completely corrupt and finds themselves in legal battles, why can't a backbencher not associated with such scandals choose to switch sides? He should have to sit as an independant then, or call a by election. I believe the conservatives were planning on introducing such legislation, it was out there during the campaign, but the NDP got there first, not sure how it came about. Though I was hoping for a more well behaved Parliament this time around, what little I've seen of it, still just resembles a frat house on weekends. When Harper, in his typical arrogant matter stood up and condemned the NDP initiative, he said something to the affect that the only party compaining about floor-crossing was the one that nobody wanted to cross to. I was hoping that in that moment one of his caucus, tired of not being able to do the job they were elected to do, would stand up and cross to the NDP. It would have been a defining moment for sure. I've got to tell you...the NDP are looking better all the time.

This attitude from many both wealthy, middle-income, and low-income parents is maddening. When will parents lose this sense of entitlement and accept that the cost and responsiblity of raising a child is theirs and theirs alone. Anything socieity provides is generous and is something they should be grateful for. I agree. The more tax cuts and handouts you give to people who have kids, the more people there will be having kids so they can get money back from the government. If you can't afford to have kids, you shouldn't have them. This world is overpopulated enough as it is. I'm not blissfully unaware of the costs, but am blissfully aware of the rewards. When people can afford to go to work without worrying about the costs or availability of childcare, they can PAY TAXES and keep the economy moving. On a few other points - if the government goes through with this insane plan and sends my grandson $100.00 per month, I will put it in the bank for him. However, I don't believe that TAXPAYERS should put money into his account. Once it's here, as his guardian, I don't get to give it away. It is then his. I want the whole plan stopped before it gets to that stage. I only mentioned the soldiers as an alternative place where the money could be put to better use. Mr. Harper or who ever came up with this sum, better get back into their time machine and set the dial for 2006, because $100.00 per month has not bought childcare since the 1950's. I listened to a radio talk show on the weekend and the topic was how parents were going to spend this handout. Like the newspaper survey, most middle income families were going to invest it, lower income use it for food, etc., etc. Not one single caller was going to use it for childcare so that they could work. One single mother of 3, with one child under 6, plans to use the money so that she can go to bingo twice a month. She is a stay at home mom, and this would give her a much needed break. Who can argue with that? However, should taxpayers be giving people money to go to bingo, when our government is using this to REPLACE a childcare plan? Is this the 'choice' they keep referring to? If we feel that stay at home moms need a break (and I do), then add it to the Child Tax Credit, which is income based. I applaud stay at home moms. I was one for more than a decade. So CPC - do not axe the daycare/childcare plan - do not call $100.00 per month an alternative to a workable daycare/childcare plan - recognize that the meager amount will not encourage people to work, nor will it encourage them to stay home. It is simply the family allowance all over again.