YEGmann

He could be, but from what we know so far he is not . There is a UN definition of child-soldiers. However his defence can find or rather fabricate some evidence that this Khadr was forcefully involved in war. But I still remember his mother words when they were leaving Canada bound to Afganistan. And I have no doubt it was his own choice to fight against the West. I believe many people think the same. Poor real child sodiers in Africa have no resemblense to this Khadr.

Read at least wikipedia, if you are so lazy... It seems you have no idea about who are child-soldiers.

So, you refuse to educate yourself... Well, it is a convenient position to spread lies here. By the way, the argument that this Khadr is not a child'soldier has been brought long time ago. Simply, as usual, liberals exploit the fact that majority of Canadians have no idea about precise formulation of laws and treaties. Call a bandit "a child" and squeeze tears from heart bleeding Canadians feeling guilty for the whole world and the whole world history. The old trick.

Yes, it does. And here you see one more big Liberal lie. Many people will face huge rise in their cost at the pump.

This Khadr does not qualify to be a child-soldier. Please educate yourself.

She's definitely guilty of violations of at least some Mexican laws (visa and work permit). As for being out jail - no way. Mexicans have granted a release on bail to her boss, Mr. Waage. He fled immediately. They won't repeat the mistake.

I heard a private member bill cannot involve budget spending. As for the plan, it is not clear how the taxes will be paid. From withdran amount? from accrued interest? If the former is the case this plan is much worse than the existing scheme, IMHO. This will rob your child twice: at the time of deposit and at the time of withdraw. If the taxes will be paid on interst only - it is still worse for your child but better for you. If it is all tax deductible and tax-free - too good to be true. And lost revenue to the budget.

Sorry, andyinottawa, I did not present any fact (I assumed everybody knows them), I presented a point of view, an explanation. I agree, it can be completely wrong, however, a statement like "none of your ideas is correct " would normally require some backing rationale. Otherwise, it is simple empty words. Don't you think so.

I do not know Dona Cudman as a person. I would readily apologize if my explanations are incorrect. But how about this scenario. 1. Consrvatives had suggested some kind of financial assistance to Mr. Cadman if he would join the CPC. Mr. Harper's explanation is approprite so far. Mr. Cadman was upset, but not too much. There are plenty of confirmations of that in his interviews. Dona misinterpreted his words. The one million-dollar insuranse policy was a figure of speech in Mr. Cadman's words. 2. Mr. and Mrs. Cadman asked Tom Zytaruk to write a biography of Mr. Cadman. After Mr. Cadman passed away, Dona fed her recollection to Tom Zytaruk. It was in 2005. Mrs. Cadman received her husband's MP benefits. 3. In 2006 Mrs. Cadman decided (why?) that she could be an MP herself. Who would you join? A winning party - the CPC. Memory of Mr. Cadman would definitely help her. She did that, got her website. Guess who heralded about this event? http://www.donacadman.com/news_det.asp?ID=1606 - Tom Zytaruk! 4. Now 2007. Dona simply forgot her input in their (her and Tom Zytaruk's) book. Sincerely. Because the initial issue was routine, nothing exraordinary. Dogs bite men. But now the draft book was in the hands of... Paul Martin to write a foreword. This is an indication of Mrs. Cadman loyality to the CPC. 5. Came 2008. Time to publish the book. Prospectives of sales are not very promissing, what was important in 2005 merely gone. Simultaneously, Liberals are waging continuous smear campaign against Conservatives. Somebody (Tom Zytaruk? Paul Martin?) saw an opportunity here. The episode from the unpublished book somehow "leaked", and almost immediately surfaced in the House of Commons. This is the best possible publicity. Sales are guaranteed. 6. Back to Dona Cadman. She had tough choice. To denounce the book, which she is a coauthor, or risk loosing the CPC nomination. For the nomination - no election in sight until some 2009. No guarantee to win, but necessity to spend her own money. The book - money is coming. The more scandalous the content is the more publicity, the more sales. Now it is men bite dogs. We saw the choice of Dona Cadman. Disclamer: my hypothesis is just a hypothesis and there is still a remote probability that Dona Cadman is right and the CPC actually suggested Mr. Cadman 1 mln-dollar life insuranse. But her insistance on this precise amount strongly undermines her cradibility. She is not lying, she simply sticks to her interpretation of her late husband words. However, in my view only this kind of hypothesis can explain all events without significant contradictions. It is not about politics, because the timing is very inconvenient for Liberals, they have just announced they won't topple the goverment. They would rather use this story during an election campaign. By the time of election this hollow story will fade. And Paul Martin is involved rather infavourably - he has known about the "probable crime" for a year and has been silent... All this story correlates well only with the book sale and Dona Cadman has stakes in it. I completely exclude Dona Cadman from the list of possible spinners of this scandal. She did not started it, she was caught. She could have stopped it to preserve a good memory of her late husband. She preferred to mud flies. That means she must have very strong reason to do that. Is it a truth (probably imaginary) overweighed a good name? I would not like to be in Dona Cadman's situation. I do not judge her. I simply presented a formal view, trying to connect all known facts by now. I will be glad to be wrong.