segnosaur

First of all, do you have a reference to that quote about "unwanted children"? Rather like to actually see that quote taken in context. (Who knows how much its meaning has been distorted) Secondly, where exactly do you get the idea that only "white trash and middle class" get abortions? I don't have any statistics for Canada, but if you look at the U.S., 53% of those getting abortions are white, even though they make up around 70% of the population. So if anything, white people are actually getting fewer abortions than blacks or asians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(United_States_Census) http://www.emedicinehealth.com/abortion/article_em.htm

No, you didn't... but post after post you keep bringing up the Tory record as if a failure by the Conservatives means that the Liberal plan is automatically a winner. I never tax cuts would create daycare... I said they would make existing care solutions (which even you agree, people seem to eventually find) more affordable. I never said governments shouldn't be willing to cut programs. However, cuts to programs can have serious implications (such as how cuts to health care increased waiting lists and caused friction between the federal and provincial governments.) So, one of 2 things is going on here... either A: you were wrong about the Liberal daycare plan going "only" to 2011, or B: You are oblivious to the problems that would happen once such funding ended. You never did indicate what you think what would happen if funding did end in 2011... Would: - Federal Funding continue? - Day care spaces start to disappear? - Increased fighting between provinces and the feds as the provinces demand continued funding? - Daycare workers decide to work for free? Great... it only took a dozen posts, and 2 direct references to statements by the Liberals themselves to convince you.

I also notice its not going to cause Liberals to either explain or recognize the flaws in their 'plans'. And I was talking sellers. Talking about sellers here is irrelevant... it is the consumers that have the responsibility for reducing their energy usage. Just where exactly do you think that CO2 comes from? Do you think companies create CO2 magically, out of nowhere? CO2 is produced when companies produce and use energy based on fossil fuels. Even if there's no tax specifically on CO2, there are still costs associated with the consumption of energy. You reduce the use of gas/hydro/etc. because it reduces your costs; the CO2 reductions are an added bonus. But those reductions were going to happen anyways. We've seen it happen in industry over the past few years. So, specific taxes on Carbon emissions are irrelevant. Companies will reduce their energy usage anyways, and as a result emissions will decrease. Really, do you think companies are generating CO2 from magic beans or something? Sequestration is, as far as I know, only in the early pilot stages. In addition, it actually increases energy requirements, and may actually cause increases in other pollutants. (See: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/src...cs_chapter3.pdf page 144, lines on NOx and SOx.) Perhaps the technology may improve in the future, but expecting companies to use technology that isn't yet available is rather, shall we say, optimistic. Yup... emissions continue to rise... fueled mostly by the transportation sector (in particular SUVs). Yet the Liberal plan would not actually do anything to change those dynamics. No, its about illustrating the significant flaws with the Liberal program, and how its pretty much useless, and how they refuse to take a stand that would actually do the most good. Actually, no... they've taken a position which is actually easy to sell... tinker with the tax system, but avoid doing anything really diffucult... makes you look like you want to help, but avoid any of the hard decisions or political backlash. I really don't give a f*ck about the Tory program. I'm dealing with the Liberal program and specifically the flaws in it. I'm not a conservative, I am not defending their policy. The fact that, whenever these flaws are demonstrated to you, you run away and respond with the "Tories are bad" argument does nothing to actually answer those flaws. Rather pathetic that that seems to be your response to everything. Sadly, I am going away and will not be able to see you once again respond with irrelevancies and more "Blame the Tory" for the next few weeks.

You forget that the Tory promise was that this help would provide 125,000 spaces. Solberg admits it didn't work at all. This was not the part of the Tory plan that I was referring to. I was referring to the tax cuts that made existing spaces more affordable, exactly like they should of done. You know, you keep chanting over and over about these 125,000 non-created spaces. At no point did I ever say I was a Tory, nor that I supported that part of their program, nor that I actually thought it would actually work. I am dealing only with the Liberal plan, its flaws, and how I think tax cuts are a preferred way to go. (Even if the Tories did not include tax cuts in their program, I still would favor them over direct spending.) I know its easier for you to keep on harping on those 125,000 non-created spaces, rather than actually dealing with the flaws in the Liberal plan. But its a rather lame way to try to prove your point. Frankly, I think it was just you trying to cloud the issue. My argument was that bringing in some sort of national daycare program, only to have the program end, would cause all sorts of problems. (Downloading expenses onto the provinces, loss of any control over standards, provincial/federal conflicts, etc.) Rather than dealing with those potential problems, you either A: pretended it wasn't a 'national program', or B: attempted to sidestep the issue. The fact that you didn't hear the term 'national program' used doesn't mean that it wasn't. In addition to the throne speech, you could also go right to the Liberal web site: http://timfugard.liberal.ca/p986_e.aspx : The Conservatives replaced the Liberal National Child Care program.

That does not mean that our neighborhoods have to be that way. If you think that Carbon emissions are such a problem, we should want our cities to be more densely populated. Saying "We have to allow huge carbon emissions for transportation" is basically just a cop out. Doesn't matter what the money is used for... the point is, their economy can handle high gas taxes. Therefor, our economy should be able to handle high gas taxes. I think some large energy companies make money on high energy prices... We're talking consumers here.... the people actually using the fossil fuels, not selling it. Doubt anyone who uses energy is going to benefit from it costing more. So, once again, do you really think there is some large group of businessmen who actually want to earn less profits by not cutting energy expenses even without the carbon taxes? Really... I can just imagine the board of directors meeting... Vice President: Sir, we found a way we can cut our heating costs. This will reduce our overall expenses, increase profits, and allow the company to give us all nice big executive bonuses President: No, I think profits are high enough as it is. Better to keep spending money on energy than on dividends and executive bonuses. And why wouldn't a company already be reducing its emissions, because cutting its energy bills will give it greater profits. In fact, its already happening... many industries have actually been reducing their emissions over the past decade, and that's without the carbon taxes. Citation for that claim? Already provided, in a posting on June 25 in this very thread, where i referenced a report from Environment Canada. In that report, they point out that in the decade and a half before 2006, CO2 emissions in all of Canada went up by 22%. CO2 emissions in transportation went up 31% (including a 116% increase in trucks/SUVs), while emissions in agriculture and power generation went up by only 20-25%, and in industry actually decreased.

Your long post amounts to this simple argument:Who is to be the judge of "excessive"? You? Me? Some bureaucrat? First of all, the issue of costs, etc. is already pretty arbitrary. Why $40/ton for CO2 in the liberal plan? Why not $50? Why not $20? Claiming that 'someone' has to make decisions is a red herring. Secondly, if they really wanted to, they could target any sort of 'carbon tax' on an industry-basis. Industries where carbon emissions have gone up would have the tax applied; industries where carbon emissions are already dropping would escape any carbon tax. Or they could look at average usage (e.g. emissions per unit of product produced) and only tax those in the top half. Actually, its not what I want at all. I've already explained that the Liberal plan is worthless for the simple reason that people already have an incentive to reduce carbon emissions, namely profits (or, in the case of individuals, greed). I was simply pointing out one of the flaws in the Liberal plan... that people are going to be hit by CO2 taxes even though they've already done all they can do to reduce energy use, while others will benefit even if their carbon emissions actually go up. To me, that doesn't exactly sound fair. Huh? Rich people fly more, heat and cool bigger homes, drive more in bigger cars, buy more stuff shipped to them. Here I agree with you... in fact, it does the opposite, it takes from the rich and gives to the poor. The problem is, it won't decrease carbon emissions (since most people are already making attempts to save energy). I already gave an example of this... Me. I drive a small car (don't even use it all the time), live in the city (so no long distance commute), use CF light bulbs, keep the heat turned down at my place, use a timed thermostat. (I don't do this because I want to 'save the environment'... I do all that to save money.) There's probably not all that much I can do to reduce my carbon emissions. Yet I will see my costs go up. And because my income is too high (and have no kids), I will not likely benefit from the tax cuts. Meanwhile you can have Joe Welfareman who can use his tax cuts to keep his El Camino idling in his driveway... he benefits from the green shift, without actually doing anything.

I really have no idea why some areas are so opposed to for-profit daycare. Likely just a philosophical thing... you don't want your child to be "Wal-marted". There are occasional claims of problems within for-profit daycare, but then there are also occasional problems in non-profit and government run daycare. I guess it just doesn't look as bad if some non-profit organization screws up compared to a for-profit company. Why exactly is it necessary to find someone to care for the child for 'less than $100/month'? The conservative plan was give some assistance, and it could in theory apply to everyone, as opposed to a subsidized space which is great for one family, but sucks for whomever is stuck on a waiting list. Your right... some parents didn't see the benefit of child tax credits due to raised taxes. But guess what? Income taxes hit higher income Canadians harder. If you want a 'progressive' social program, shouldn't they be the ones you hit? Oh, and remember, while they did 'raise' income taxes, they also reduced the GST, which tends to affect lower-income Canadians more. So, pretty much a wash there. Each province had to sign on separately. Each administered the money themselves. A report of how the money was used was to be provided to the Feds and if it wasn't meeting the needs or was being used to buy things like lawnmowers, the Feds could pull out ... You know, you're actually helping prove my point... Although the province handles the details, the Feds still had control over how the money was spent. That type of control makes it a federal program in much the same way that medicare is a federal program. And once again, why won't you answer my question: if it wasn't a 'national program', then why did the Liberals label it as such in the throne speech? So yes, agreements can end when the Feds say they will, especially when they tend to be abused like the diagnostic fund. In this case, the Feds went too far as even some on the right wing admit. However, funding for things like diagnostic equipment was cancelled outright due to abuse. Really? Well, we certainly know that the Tories can't control themselves. Flaherty has blown past his promise on spending on every budget. Actually, although the economy did OK during Regan's tenure, it did not grow at the rate that it did under Clinton. Plus, interest rates were higher in the 80s than in the late 90s. That makes a big difference when you're trying to control debt. As I explained before, the bulk of Chretien's cuts were in areas like defense and health care, areas where people probably didn't want cuts, where the costs were passed on to other levels of government, or which have lead to long term problems. Direct spending on government programs themselves however, did increase. That may be your issue, but its not mine. A bad program is still a bad program, regardless of the number of people who support it. I'm arguing against the liberal plan on its merrits (or lack of them) rather than on electability.

You've explained it but I don't believe it So, you really don't believe people sometimes drive just for the pleasure of it? You REALLY think anyone that drives an SUV to their office really requires such a large vehicle just for them and their briefcase? I personally know people who like to go for drives for pleasure. I personally know people who selected larger cars (because they like the 'feel' of them), even though they always drove alone. Granted, those are just anecdotes (and anecdotes are not really 'proof' of anything.) However, keep in mind that in the past year we've seen sales of SUVs decrease (corresponding with increases in fuel prices). If people really needed SUVs, why wouldn't sales of them continue to remain strong? Obviously people didn't need the extra size. Smaller territory And most Canadians live in urban areas. So, this means that the 'larger territory' of Canada doesn't matter much, since most people don't have to drive across country on a regular basis. Oh yes, MUCH better transit. Of course, with our lower gas taxes here, we don't get the needed ridership to improve transit. Yes, more compact neighborhoods... However, our sparse population density is due at least in part to cheap gas. Increase the cost of gas, and fewer people will choose to live in the suburbs. And a penalty of those profits for not enacting cleaner energy can be an effective tool. They already have a penalty... its called their energy bill... Honestly, do you actually think there are business people around now who are thinking "I could increase my profits by reducing energy bills, but I don't really feel like it"? And I thought the argument was going to be that it is because climate change is not real and nothing needs to be done. Actually, I'm not totally convinced that humans are responsible for global climate change. Yes, there is some evidence in that direction, but there are some significant problems with their 'models' that should be addressed. The climate is very complex, and saying "humans did it" may not be accurate. (Even the U.N. experts have given themselves some leeway; I think they've said that they're only '90%' sure humans are responsible.) However, I do think that reducing energy use has other benefits besides reducing carbon emissions... including reducing sulfur and other pollutants, and reducing dependence on possibly hostile foreign countries. However, I doubt the ultimate solution is going to involve tinkering with the tax system or setting regulations. The ultimate solution will be through science... nuclear fusion, improved solar, biofuels... I have no idea what the dominate technology will be, but it will not likely come from direct government action. Don Drummond also admitted that it is going to hit some harder than others. "...there will be no individual or company in the country that will exactly get back what it pays back in carbon tax,"..."There will be a lot of winners and a lot of losers." From: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/18/...an.html?ref=rss So even Drummond admits its not exactly a perfect program. Look, I knew where all the baiting was leading. It was tax gas out of existence or your hate the planet or if you don't tax it, then you are power hungry. How utterly transparent. Yeah, it was pretty transparent. But given the fact that you admitted that actually taxing gas would be "unpopular", it ended up being pretty accurate. Again, the covers only one form of carbon emitter. But its the one carbon emitter which has seen its contributions rise faster than any other industry. Seems pretty significant to me.

Doesn't that rather defeat your whole argument there? You're admitting people "find something".... therefore, child care spaces are available (even if they're not subsidized or government run). I've provided enough evidence to show that enough provinces/cities (incorporating a majority of the population of Canada) would have been hostile to for-profit daycare; that should be enough to show that any plan that isn't either directly government run or not-for-profit will be at a disadvantage and thus less likely to create spaces in Canada as a whole, even if you don't know the particular details in every other province. Not sure, but in Britian about 85% of all daycare is handled by for-profit daycare centers. Nobody is claiming otherwise. (Heck, we had the baby bonus for many many years; no reason to expect them to end soon.) However, it was you who was claiming the Liberal plan would magically end in 2011, with no problems. The Tory plan may not have been able to directly create the daycare spaces they were predicting, but that does not mean the overall plan was a failure. Low income people can now better afford childcare even if the space itself is not a subsidized daycare space. It was a funding agreement. Every announcement made it clear it would help with provincial programs. It has no administration in Ottawa as other federal programs do. It was a funding agreement that involved certain standards be met. It was not simply a block of money given to provinces to do anything with. They couldn't use the money to build roads, or give tax cuts. So, once again... if it wasn't a 'national program', then why did the Liberals label it as such in the throne speech? Once again, you seem to be the only person in the universe who doesn't consider it a 'national' system. Yes, and as a result of Liberal cuts to health care, there was A: Significant conflicts between the provinces and the federal government, and B: general shortages in available medical care. Martin had to go and give more money to the provinces to 'fix' the problem. Not a very successful withdrawl of funds now, was it. So if you're pointing to health care cuts as a way the federal government can pull out of a program, you've just illustrated why such a plan wouldn't work. At the risk of getting off topic, the Liberal's record on controlling spending is greatly overinflated. First of all, while it is true that they eliminated the deficit, they also had the benefit of 1) lower interest rates (when compared to the previous Mulroney years) and 2) a very strong economy Secondly, many of their cuts were in either health care/provincial transfers (basically downloading the problem to the provinces), or defense. However, most Canadians actually WANT health care, and the lack of spending on defense caused significant deterioration of our forces, which NOW have to be made up. When you look at direct spending on government services/programs, I believe overall spending by the federal government actually went up during the Chretien years.

First of all, I've already explained multiple ways that fuel consumption is discretionary (people driving when they don't need to, driving larger cars, etc.) I could also add that having 'cheap' gasoline encourages importation of products; more expensive gas would encourage producers to locate closer to their customers. Europe has much higher fuel taxes than Canada, and somehow they're surviving. They already have a reward... its called profits. You might have heard of them? But why? If you think that taxation discourages use, why is the current level of taxation OK, but much higher taxation wrong? I never claimed to support the conservative plan either. Its possible that both plans are wrong... the Liberal plan because its ineffectual (since companies and people already have incentives to reduce costs), the conservative plan because its targeted incorrectly. Except that it probably won't make a difference in actual CO2 emissions... Ah, now HERE we get to the crux of the issue. So, even though the Liberals claim to want to save us from global warming, they don't have the guts or desire to do what's really necessary. Something needed but politically unpopular? Just drop it. Guess the earth takes a back seat to getting re-elected. First of all, regulations on milage may help reduce emissions... but I have not seen anything in the Liberal's plan to suggest such regulations are part of their plans. Secondly, such regulation are really only tinkering... it doesn't stop people from using their vehicles unnecessarily, nor does it stop people from puchasing SUVs when a compact car will do. Lastly, such regulations may ultimately be unnecessary. As gas prices go up, people will naturally start to look at smaller cars with better fuel efficiency. In fact, its already started to happen over the past year.

Perhaps because many of those seniors have lived in those houses for many decades, and have also worked for this country (supporting its economy) for about the same length of time. As a result, many people think those people at least deserve a little respect, and part of that respect is the ability to live in their existing house. First of all, hydro isn't exactly clean... fossil fuels are used in the construction of hydro dams and in maintaining the power lines. It also causes its own type of environmental problems: the required flooding changes ecosystems, removes trees (consumers of CO2), and may also release some CO2 (as the now-dead trees decay). More importantly, Hydro is also fungible. Power generated from Hydro and power generated from fossil fuels is interchangeable. For every unit of power not consumed by Quebec, that power could in theory be used to decrease the need for power generated from coal or oil. So, ultimately, if you really think its necessary to increase taxes in order to curb greenhouse gas emissions, you should consider taxing all energy consumption. I've already explained many of the ways gasoline is more discretionary in a previous post... Just to repeat though... People do take pleasure trips. People do drive when they could bus, walk, or car pool. People do often drive vehicles which are much larger than needed. People also often buy homes in the suburbs where they could choose a place closer to work. Much of Europe has much higher gas taxes than here, so obviously it is possible for a functioning economy to have higher prices at the pumps. In the short term, increasing gas prices will cause people to use their cars less. In the mid-term, it will encourage people to buy smaller cars, or live closer to where they work. In the long term, it might cause people to demand fuel alternatives. Well, if you think that imposing taxes is the best way to go, do you really think that taxing all CO2 emissions equally is the best way to go? After all, there will always be cases where CO2 emissions cannot be avoided (e.g. basic heating, assuming the house is sufficiently insulated). Expecting people to use other forms of energy is not practical because of the fungibility of the energy consumed. Wouldn't it make more sense to actually go after people who are responsible for CO2 emissions that are actually excessive to what they require? Ok, here's the problems with that statement... First of all, you are trusting that the money would be returned to all Canadians. No guarantee that it would though. (I think the liberals have made some sort of claim that the auditor general would monitor things, but the Auditor general doesn't really have the authority to force the government to alter tax rates if they do find that the tax plan isn't really revenue neutral. Secondly, keep in mind that even if somehow the plan is revenue neutral for the government, that does not mean that it will be revenue neutral for each person. For example, I myself do my best to keep my carbon emissions low.... I drive a small car, don't use it all the time, keep my house temperature low, have a programmable thermostat, have CF lights, etc. I don't do this to be environmental, I do this to save money. There isn't really much more I can do to cut costs. However, I am still using some energy, and as such I will end up paying more. And because my income is too high, I won't really have those tax cuts. (On the other hand, some guy on welfare will now be able to afford to leave his El Camino idling in his driveway 24/7, thanks to the extra money from his tax cuts.) Lets call this plan what it is... the "Take from the middle class, give to the poor" bill, because ultimately that's what it is. But we already have that incentive... its called greed. Companies already have the desire to cut their CO2 emissions because reducing energy usage (even without the carbon tax) will increase overall profits. In fact, that's already happened... CO2 emissions in many industries have actually gone down over the past few years. Individuals have an incentive to reduce CO2 emissions... its called their bank account. They want to see as much money in their bank account as possible, so it makes sense to cut as many costs (including energy costs) as possible. Except for the fact that the Liberal plan probably won't do much to actually achieve anything, since companies and people already have an incentive to reduce costs. So, no costs, no achievement. Kind of symmetrical, don't you think?

Each province has their own way of reporting and assessing demand. In Manitoba, they list who wants daycare of any kind and whether there is space available. So, in other words you don't have any proof that there are a significant number of people who lack any daycare, just First of all, I never said that all daycare is run by union members, only that some are (of which I provided proof). Secondly, I've already explained in a previous post why ultimately its not important. Could have suprised me. The way you're crucifying the tories over the issue suggests otherwise. I can't speak for Ontario in this matter. People there might have a case. First of all, it wasn't just the Ontario government. The first article specifically mentioned provincial and city governments (note the plural). I've also seen other references to Saskatchewan and Quebec (not to mention city governments, and those are only the ones I've seen...there may be more.). I only quoted the Ontario politician because the quote was so demonstrative of their attitude. Might have gone differently if more provinces and cities were willing to be supportive of for-profit daycare. Why exactly do you think the government is the only one who can provide? Again, you've totally missed the point... and after I explained things quite explicitly in my last point... You are under the bizzare belief that once federal daycare funding ends there will be no repercussions. Some daycare postions are unionized, some are not. But even if there were absolutely no daycare unions, it would not change the fact that those daycare workers would still need to be paid. That is the issue. I'd still have to see the reason why this is happening. Could be numerous reasons. Actually, its pretty clear... you have a Quebec program that offers something with supposedly a very low cost. Not any more surprising than if my local 7/11 sold out of bread when they have them on for half price. (The difference is, if my local store is sold out of a certain product, I don't end up paying for other people who have bought the product.) You know, I think I know what a federal program is. It is CPP. It is EI. This is not a federal program because it is not federally administered. The daycare program would have been A: Largely funded by the federal government, B: would have had certain restrictions/requirements placed on the use of the money. (Much like our health care system). If you don't consider that a 'national' program, then you're probably the only person who doesn't. So, if its not a national program, just why did the Liberals label it as a 'national system'? Why are you disagreeing with the party that you seem to be supporting? You know, you have this bizarre infatuation with the Crow rate, as if simply mentioning it will magically ward of all evil. The problem is, it doesn't really have any relevance here. First of all, the Crow Rate didn't involve the provinces themselves receiving money. (Perhaps some farmers may have complained about the loss of subsidies, but they are not as powerful a lobby group as the provincial premiers.) Secondly, there were a lot of people in Western Canada who were opposing the subsidies anyways (since it meant raw material was being exported instead of remaining in the region for further processing). So the Crow rate was supported by only a very small number of people, and opposed by an even larger group of people. Cancelling such a program is not going to cause many problems. Compare that to daycare, where you are dealing with a very large lobby group (the Provinces) who will be expected to pick up the costs after the federal funding ends... a totally different set of circumstances.

You know, all this talk of ethanol may actually end up being pointless... From : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle4133668.ece ...the genetic alteration of (bacteria) so that when they feed on agricultural waste such as woodchips or wheat straw, they do something extraordinary. They excrete crude oil. ... The company is not interested in using corn as feedstock, given the much-publicised problems created by using food crops for fuel, such as the tortilla inflation that recently caused food riots in Mexico City. Instead, different types of agricultural waste will be used... Granted, this is only in the early stages, and may not necessarily pan out. But think about what it would mean if they could get this to work on an industrial scale: - No need for changes to our infrastructure (e.g. no 'ethanol' filling stations, no changes to the cars themselves) - No conflict over food production - No need to worry about greenhouse gases anymore

I already explained that in an earlier post. Its because gas usage is more discretionary than many other forms of fossil fuel usage, and unlike taxes on industrial uses cannot be passed on to others. Really, I explained all this earlier. Even gave references showing how carbon emissions in many industries have gone down over the past few years without any sort of green shift tax policy. I never said I wanted gas prices increased. Try to follow the thread. What I said that if you feel that carbon emissions are an environmental problem (and you champion a policy which punishes heavy users through taxation) then why aren't YOU demanding even higher gas taxes? If you care about the environment, you should be writing your favorite Liberal to say "Increase the cost of gas at the pump... We need to save the environment". Heck, you should be championing the Conservative plan... after all, if taxes discourage waste, even higher taxes should discourage even more waste. So, why aren't you demanding higher gas taxes? Is it because you don't really care that much about greenhouse gas emissions, and realize that it would be politically unpopular and prevent your liberals from getting into power?

Just wondering... where is your proof that there is 'not enough overall space'? You keep making the claim. I've been letting it slide. There may not have been as many government-run (or subsidized) spaces, but that does not mean that there "are not enough overall spaces". (Or if there are shortages, that subsidies would help, rather than just shift the funding round) Secondly, before you start laying the blame, keep in mind that a lot of private for-profit daycares (ones who might be willing to create those daycare spaces) have often been discriminated against in Canada by politicians and unions. ...many provincial and municipal governments actively discriminate against the licensed for-profit sector... (from http://www.childcaretoday.ca/News_Release_May17_06.pdf ) Ontario's Ministry of Children and Youth Services isn't rolling out the red carpet for big corporate daycare....said ministry spokesperson Tricia Edgar. http://www.thestar.com/article/268752 So, it almost becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy... for-profit daycares are discriminated against, they don't create any spaces, and then the politicians go and demand more subsidized daycare because the private operators aren't creating the spaces. So, the provinces were demanding assistance for years... and you somehow think that, had the Liberals gotten into power and started their 'national' program, that the provinces would not have expected continued funding after the supposed 'expiry' date? You're right, that document does mention nighttime daycare available in Quebec. Of course, it also mention... ...because government funding is limited and remains focused on basic care and development, child care programs do not have the leeway to explore arrangements to meet the atypical needs of a growing number of families: irregular work schedules, evening, night and weekend shifts, part-time or casual employment, siblings, children with special needs, etc. ... ...only full-day centre-based and family child care ... are eligible for MFE funding And where it does mention government funded programs to provide off-hours care, it always says these are pilot programs, so they are not available to all, nor is there any guarantee they will be continued. So, while someone may actually have access to evening daycare, it appears its not government funded, and my point stands... there are people who are socially disadvantaged who can't use a government service, but subsidize wealthier people who do. Why exactly does that matter? Even if its just subsidized (and not directly run by the government) it will still have to maintain certain standards. Again, why exactly is that relevant? Ok, I was the one that brought up unions... but I did not do so because I wanted you to become fixated on them. I did so because I was highlighting how ridiculous it was to assume that once federal funding stops that somehow everything would continue as it was. (I mentioned unions as they are typically very aggressive in protecting wages, but all workers would want to fight to protect their jobs.) Again, what are the stats on those in need here? Why don't you just look at the Quebec stats, which show (if I remember correctly) 1/4 of people who are unable to get subsidized daycare, despite paying into it. Ahem.... "The time has come for a truly national system..." (From the Liberal throne speech... http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/daycare/) So obviously the Liberals at the time were considering it a "national" program (even though it was administered by the provinces.) It was presented as a 'national' program (much the same way that health care is a 'national' program). People understood it to be a national program. The Liberal party itself labeled it as a "national system". Really, I continue to be amazed that you did not expect any problems with the Liberal when the funding was 'officially' supposed to end. Astounding. Almost awe-inspiring. You'd figure the last few decades of provincial demands for federal cash for various social programs would have given enough of a warning that simply ending federal cash flows is going to be messy.

Every fuel is being taxed. The excise tax of gas will apply as carbon tax. That tax is already higher than other fuels. Yes, you have made the claim that the 'excise tax' will apply as the carbon tax. But that is also totally irrelevant. Every other use of fossil fuel has multiple taxes. There is no reason why the government would have to limit the price at the gas pump to just the 'excise tax'. (Remember, we also have the GST applied at the gas pump too.) So, once again, given the fact that you are assuming carbon emissions are harmful to the environment, and that there is a significant amount of discretionary use in gasoline, then why are you not demanding the Liberals increase the taxes at the gas pump? The question isn't that difficult. Goody for that. Except A: That could actually be higher, if we REALLY want to encourage people to save gas, and B: still doesn't explain why gas is except (other than your discounted suggestion that the 'excise' tax counts as the carbon tax)

Really. Where is your evidence of that? http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=599498 (Dion) acknowledged the average household could eventually wind up paying up to $250 more a year because of higher heating and electricity costs. http://news.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/Dion+intr...c&date=True The proposed tax -- unveiled at a boisterous Liberal rally in Ottawa -- will hit electricity and home heating fuel[/i] http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...5968491-sun.php In Ontario, for instance, government figures show Dion's plan would add at least 20% to the overall annual cost of generating electricity across the province. (Note that this source is an opinion column; however, it is from a national newspaper chain, and supposedly the figures were originally government figures.) http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...cqxvT6Bt-Defv3Q Premier Dalton McGuinty says he still supports the federal Liberals' carbon tax plan...That would add a $1.1-billion tax on Ontario's coal-fired plants Now, in 2006, revenue at Ontario Power Generation was $5.7 billion. Adding $1.1 billion in taxes is 19.2%... not quite 20%. but close enough. Or lets look at the numbers... In 2006, 117,000 kT of CO2 were released in Canada from electricity and heating. The Liberal plan is to see the price of carbon emissions end up at $40/ton. This means the total carbon tax would be roughly $4.7 billion/year. Given the fact that there are about 22 million Canadians who are of 'taxpayer' age, it works out to an additional $214 per person. And not everyone who pays that extra $214 will actually receive a tax cut in compensation. http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_repo...006/tab_eng.cfm http://www.opg.com/news/releases/NewsFeb16_07.pdf

I'm not talking about the Tory plan. I'm talking about the Liberal plan, specifically how their failure to tax fuel used in transportation may actually eliminate the only 'benefit' the Liberal plan has in curbing carbon emissions. So, once again, why are you not demanding the Liberals increase fuel taxes in order to cut carbon emissions?

Just out of curiosity... if you think that carbon emissions are truly causing environmental problems, then what exactly is wrong with that? Not saying I support the conservative plans, or that your assessment is right or wrong, or even that human activities are causing global warming, but lets face it: transportation (especially personal transportation) is one of the few areas where significant reductions can be made. (And transportation has shown some of the highest growth in fossil fuel consumption over the past decade and a half. See: http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_repo...som-sum_eng.cfm ) Consider other areas: in Business or industry, companies already had an incentive to lower energy... its called profit. Charging them more for carbon usage probably isn't going to buy you much benefit. (And, if you look at the reference above, many industries already have been reducing their emissions.) And if a company is hit by higher energy taxes, the costs can easily get passed to the consumer. What about things like home heating? Well, we live in a cold country... apart from perhaps getting people to improve insulation (which many probably have already done) you can't save much there. Power generation? Again, people have probably already done all they can to reduce electrical use. (About the only things that might help at this point are added nuclear plants, and/or methods to smooth out consumption patterns, neither of which is going to get any major assistance from tax changes.) Cars, on the other hand, are one of the few areas where carbon emissions are often discretionary. People often drive cars that are larger than they require. They go for pleasure drives. They take the car when they could take the bus. Unlike so many other areas of the economy, higher fuel taxes might actually make a more significant difference in people's actions (and ultimately in carbon emissions). So, instead of pointing out a possible increase in fuel prices as a "flaw" in the conservative plans, perhaps you should be demanding that the Liberals change their policies to greatly increase fuel taxes, all in the name of protecting the environment.

Of course, you're entitled to believe whatever you want. However, I'm the type of guy who actually likes to consider real actual facts and evidence. And the fact is, Quebec birthrates continued to be below the Canadian even after subsidized daycare began, and waiting lists continue to exist (and be quite lengthy) even now that their birthrate has gone up. There appears to be no co-relation. But the, you can continue believing whatever you want at the alter of Liberal daycare. I never claimed that you personally attacked me. I pointed out that you have engaged in partisan politics and made broad attacks like that in general. Correction.... tax cuts don't build public subsidized daycare spaces. They may however make private spaces more affordable (something you seem to be ignoring), or give parents the opportunity to provide more informal services (e.g. through babysitters, family, etc.), something that won't be counted as a 'daycare space', but still provides the necessary function of caring for young children. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears, does it make a sound? Or in this case, if a parent manages to find the best care they can for the child, but it doesn't get payed for by the government, is the child still taken care of? First of all, comparing daycare to the private/public school system is not an accurate comparison. A person who works nights may have no option to use public daycare, whereas if a person decides to use private schools is truly an option (and if they decide to use public schools that option is always available to them.) Secondly, you do realize that the people I'm referring to (those who are unable to use subsidized daycare due to hours of work) are often the poorest and most in need of assistance? Perhaps that's why I'd never make a good Liberal. I have this strange idea: I believe that if we do have social programs, they should either A: help those that need it most, or B: help all people equally. The Liberal plan failed to help many of those that needed it most, and it certainly wouldn't help all people. In fact, the Liberal plan was Robin Hood in reverse... money taken from people most in need in order to subsidize those who might have been able to afford their own daycare. So what Liberal policies do we have to look forward to? Saving animals by hunting endangered species? Managing our forests by burning down old growth trees? Actually, just the opposite... it was actually helpful to more people to help them afford childcare (i.e. no waiting lists, no mis-allocation of space). It wouldn't have paid the entire portion of day care, but it would have been equitable. You know, over and over again, you keep making the claim that the conservatives 'failed' to create child care spaces. I don't yet have the figures for the past 2 years, but if you look at the decade prior to that, the number of daycare spaces (and the number of children occupying those spaces) has gone up, in pretty much every part of the country (even outside Quebec). For example, the number of children in daycare went from 42% in 1994 to 54% in 2003. So daycare spaces were being created, even without the vaunted Liberal daycare policy. So before you go making the claim about how "no daycare spaces were created", please do some research. http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/89-...-MIE2006003.pdf That is pretty specific. Actually, not, its not 'pretty specific'. In fact, its quite a common situation. Those people who are perhaps at the biggest disadvantage (e.g. single parents, perhaps lacking marketable skills) are usually the ones that are forced to take jobs where the working hours outside the core 9-5 business hours. (Janitorial, security jobs, retail, food service, etc.) And because these jobs are unskilled, they also tend to have lower wages. However, because they are night-jobs, "official" daycare is typically not available for them. So, you have the poorest section of society, the ones who are in most need of help, yet they are the ones who get passed over, yet end up helping pay for others who need help. Not that I'm aware of. I'm not in Quebec so I can't speak for the situation there (although I'd be very surprised if they did, given the fact that many are run directly by the government.) However, I do know people who use daycare here in Ontario (some private, some government subsidized). None of them are open in the evening. (I also did a quick google search for hours of operation for daycares in Canada, and the only services I could find that were available in the evening were private babysitters, the type that the Liberal program would not help with.) Except it doesn't. It ignores a large portion of low wage earners who need the service but can't get it. The conservative plan actually provided the help to the greatest amount of people in need (even if it didn't provide full funding), since anyone with children could be in line for the tax cuts/rebates, regardless of what hours they worked, and regardless of availability of space. Again, not a good comparison... First of all, regardless of how secure your job is, there is still a chance you may need EI. But if you work nights your totally out of luck with regards to public daycare. Secondly, I've pointed out that public daycare fails to assist a good portion of people who have the greatest need. However, even though you or I may not use OAS, it still may be justified as helping the less advantaged. If the program had fulfilled its goals or the province took over responsibility for the program, the Feds might not renew a program. You know, I almost wish that the Liberals had won the last election... it would have been amusing to see what exactly would happen after the 'magic' money runs out. Do you honestly not see the problems here? Do you really think that there won't be problems down the line when the federal money runs out? This is kind of like the Iraq war of daycare policy... no exit strategy. Nothing that happens at the end of that term would be good.... - Program continued? So much for your claim of a 'fixed' time frame and costs - Program cancelled? So much for all those 'created' daycare spaces. All those parents are going to be scrambling to find ther space - Provinces take over funding? Not only could it damage federal/provincial relations, but then the federal government looses all control over exactly how daycare money is spent. Which daycares are unionized? Pretty much anything directly run by the government is unionized. For example: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/20...ke20070227.html Remember, with the extra regulation that comes with government subsidized daycare, you do have certain requirements for training, etc. And just what type of national daycare system would we have then? And just wondering... if provinces could afford such programs now, and they thought it was important to have such programs, why haven't they already started creating such programs using their provincial tax base already?

It is up to each province to tailor the needs of their program to their province's needs. If Quebec believes it needs policies to encourage children, that is up to them. Totally misses the point. I was pointing out that the number of daycare spaces was so small (compared to the number needed) that it would have been pretty much insignificant in people deciding to have children. Yeah, the Quebec government can do things it thinks will increase its birthrate. Heck, if they wanted, they could fund some pagans to sacrifice a live chicken in honor of some fertility goddess in order to increase the birthrate. Whether their actions have any effect is questionable. Ah, there's the attack of the right wing we are all familiar with. And people wonder why each debate degenerates into bile and hatred. Ok, first of all, my comment was made in jest. Thought that was rather obvious with the 'cheap shot' comment. Secondly, I am not 'right wing'. For the most part, I take a libertarian stance. I even pointed that out in this very thread on Jun 13 2008. Lastly, having you complain about "attack of the right wing" is extremely hypocritical of you, considering some of the posts you have made. You know, under other circumstances, I might have apologized for being insulting. But given the blatant hyporacy and all around mistakes with your comments I do not believe an apology is warranted. Each province crafts their own program and the Feds agreed to help finance provincial run programs with the aim to bring more affordable daycare spaces into each province. Wait a second... here you're claiming that the goal is to bring 'more affordable' daycare spaces. Bringing in 'more affordable' isn't necessarily the same as 'creating' daycare spaces. So which is it? You claiming the goal is to 'create' daycare spaces (where none existed before)? In that case, you have to address the fact that many of those 'created' daycare spaces aren't really new, they're just existing spaces with slightly different funding (as I pointed out in the real live Quebec example). Or are you claiming that the goal is to take existing spaces and just make them "more affordable"? In that case, you have to justify why a direct government subsidy is better than a tax cut (because after all, both allow parents to better afford daycare; the difference is that the parents get more options with the tax cuts.) So which is it? Or are you going to once again ignore the question or descent into irrelevancies? To answer your last question, consider this: The Tory program subsidizes parents to do provide whatever care they want to provide for their children. Do you think it is fair for childless singles to pay for someone else's children? You know, its quite revealing that, instead of actually answering my question, you choose to avoid the issue all together. Is your position so weak that you are unable to actually answer that basic question? However, I will take the high road and answer your question... Do I think its fair for childless singles to pay for someone else's children? I'm assuming you're referring to daycare only. The answer is no, I don't think its totally fair. However, I feel that tax cuts directed at families to be less unfair than the Liberal plan. Rather like if I had the choice between ebola and the flu... I'd rather have neither, but if I had to have either, I'd definitely pick the one that caused the least problems, whether it be the flu or the Conservative tax cuts for families. So, once again, I ask: do you think its fair that, under the Liberal plan, a single parent who could not use subsidized day care (because they worked evening/nights, etc.) still has to pay taxes to subsidize other parent's daycare on top of their own child care expenses?

It was a fixed program with a fixed price and a fixed time. Ummm.... just out of curiosity, what do you think would happen at the end of that 'fixed time' frame? Would the federal government continue the program? If so, so much for your 'fixed time' claim. Would the feds end the program and expect the provinces to continue funding it themselves (much like health care)? Possibly... Of course, that's basically equivalent to provincial downloading. Would the program be cancelled outright? Hmmm... wonder how many daycare spaces that would create? Or do you magically assume that all those daycare workers (many of whom will be unionized because they are run directly by governments) would begin to work for free? And that all the ongoing infrastructure costs would magically vanish? Maybe (had the Liberal plan been put in place) after the funding period had ended, they could simply let the kids run free in the forest. Free range daycare. Really... if you're going to claim how many daycare spots the Liberal plan 'successfully' created, you have to assume there's going to be some ongoing costs, and any suggestion that there won't be expectations for money in the future from the provinces in order to continue a "successful" daycare system is, well, not too rational. Honesty is the best policy. I suggest you rent the movie Idiocracy.

Important details. 35,000 more daycare spaces. The subsidy alone wasn't enough if there wasn't enough spaces. There still aren't enough spaces... despite the 35,000 more spaces, there are still huge waiting lists. In fact, that number of daycare spaces only represents approximately 10% of the children in day care, and only about 1/4 of those who were stuck in private daycare at the time. Anyone who thought it would be 'safe' to have children because of all the new daycare spaces would have been a moron. Do you really think its really a good idea to encourage those people to reproduce? Once again... despite all those 'new' daycare spaces, the total number provided was only a small fraction of that required. Yes, I am blaming this partly on the conservatives, since I don't ever remember the tories explaining the cost per-taxpayer either. Frankly, I think all politicians should be forced to explain how much each of their election promises would cost the each taxpayer. Of course, if the Tories did that to the Liberal plans, they'd be forced to lay out the cost of their own plans. Well, being a Liberal supporter I'm not suprised that you have trouble with deception... (Ok, I know... cheap shot. My apologies...) I never said the recent increase in payouts to the province wouldn't create daycare spaces. What I said was that the underlying motivation was not "Lets help the children"... it was just as likely "Lets increase an already bloated government program because we want to be seen as doing something." You know, you keep pointing out that the Liberal plan was "creating space" while the conservative plan was not. But that isn't really an accurate representation of what's happening. The Liberal plan may have 'created' subsidized daycare spaces, but it may not have necessarily created more total space, as many people may have simply switch from the private to subsidized system, or from a non-professional babysitter to a daycare service. (I've tried to find stats on this but have been unable to.) The end result? No more childcare is available, just more taxpayer money being funneled around. Consider this: Quebec has approximately ~93,000 children stuck in private daycare. Future government efforts are not necessarily going to increase the total number of spaces, but they are going to turn the private spaces into subsidized spaces. From: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...fc-cb927eaaab24 : The biggest measure in yesterday's budget was $85 million over five years to level the playing field between the costs of private vs. subsidized daycare. So, tell me, do you think its far that, under the Liberal plan, a single parent who could not use public or subsidized day care (because they worked evening/nights, or were not close to a population center with such daycare provided) still has to pay taxes to subsidize other parent's daycare on top of their own child care expenses?

Ummm... just out of curiosity, how exactly would you go about establishing such rules? Isn't even the imposition of such rules a form of censorship? After all, even if its done before the production, you still are deciding what's appropriate for the movie and what isn't. And how exactly would you go about enforcing it? What if someone claims to be making a World war 2 documentary, but only afterwards is it discovered to be something on Holocaust denial? Do people have to submit their scripts first? What if their initial 'proposal' deviates from the finished product? What then?

Except for the fact that Mark Steyn isnt, nor ever has been in front of HRC's. Ummm... From http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...080606/20080606 The tribunal is wrapping up a case brought by a member of the Canadian Islamic Congress...against Maclean's magazine. They claim a book excerpt by Steyn republished in the national news magazine in October 2006 promoted hate against Muslims. Not sure what exactly you're arguing. Granted, the issue involves the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal (rather than HRC), and it is focused more on McCleans magazine itself rather than Steyn. However, those are minor details, and the point is clear: some "human rights" organization has been brought a case which restricts free expression in a way that is more serious than simply not funding certain movies. (For the record... I'm against censorship. Frankly, I'd like to see government involvement in movie making eliminated.)