willy

Copying and pasting Liberal talking points off their website, does not forward this discussion. Again all the Liberal's talk about is Conservatives. They are too afraid to look in the mirror. Here I can copy and paste off the Conservative website, does this name calling really accomplish anything.

Today Harper continued to outline what he would like to do, given the chance. He is not taking the 30000 ft promises of the first half but rather adding 1000 ft details. Morning he talked about accountability and the changes to awarding contracts from government. Afternoon, he talked about parts of the defence policy. Details: * The Conservative plan calls for a new rapid reaction army battalion composed of 650 regular force personnel at CFB Bagotville which would be air deployable out of the base. That a 50% personnel increase at the base. We also guarantee the long term future of the base by supporting the upgrading of Canada’s CF-18 fighters to meet air defence requirements. * The Conservatives will also recruit an additional 1000 regular force personnel and 750 reserves, with accompanying equipment, to meet army requirements at CFB Valcartier, the training school at St. Jean, and CFB Montreal. Furthermore, a Conservative government will create two new territorial defence battalions (100 regular force and 400 reserve force personnel each) for enhanced emergency response in the areas of Québec City and Montréal. You may like or not like the policy. But at least he is outlining the alternative. He will continue to put detail around the broad policy announced. I don't know if this is the winning strategy but it is much preferred way of campaigning. I am sure the ad campaign will point out the problems the Liberals represent. It should. But the Leader is talking about ideas. What will Martin continue to do? Talk about Harper. He has said many times we are going to move to policy. Where, when? We are well into the campaign and the Gun policy was the only thing that comes to mind and this is something he admits provinces can opt in or out. His child care plan is old and all he did was to promise to continue funding it. He has nothing. Attack old premiers, attack the Americans, defend our Liberal values. Something is starting to smell on the plane that doesn’t fly and the horse cart with a flat tire. Rant out!

Is simple possession a reasonable limitation to suspend rights? Just asking.

I think that means getting rid of the corrupt government in place right now. Gomer, HRDC, Income Trusts and check out this know info: http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000505.html Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice... Vote Conservative or NDP, just not the Liberals. That is good for Canada.

Great, I will vote for him. You get one vote, and that is against. Okay 20 million more to go. I guess that is why we call it democracy. We all get to make up our own mind. I think Harper has showen the ability to stay the course and his leadership is growing. The definition of leadership is unique in only one way and that is followers. Who has more right now Martin or Harper?

Hey don't the Liberals have a separatists as a cabnit minister?

No it does not. BB that was the second time today I have read a reference you made to the bible. Please read it first.

Eureka The Honest PoliticianMe thinks we have a dilemma. Is the Liberal plan to run the system or sign deals with the provinces to run their systems. I don't think the Conservatives would have anything to do with licensing. Not that they are apposed to it but it is up to the provinces to manage such things. Who is in the best position to design and implement child care options? My answer: the provinces. How can the feds help? My answer: Funding, tax credits, tax room, direct money to parents. Who will deliver the service? My answer: Depends on the province but in every province probably a mix of profit, non profit and government centers (muni or provincial) Honest Politician, how do you see the provinces involved and what limits should the feds adhere to and allow each province to reflect the regional differences?

The non profit industry does amazing work. Why would we want to replace some of these fantasitic organization born out of a vision with some government drones.

Do you think you can eliminate child poverty and bad care? I am a realist, I want a government with practical ideas that encourage the best possible outcome for the greatest number of kids. I am all for reguations. Provincial and enforced provincially. I think they can figure that out. Child and families ministeries in partnership with education would be a good fit. Federal governments giving tax credits to businesses that may be non profits for doing social nessasary work is fine with me. They will always need reguation and enforcement. This has nothing to do with who provides service. If a parent chooses to use alternatives to registered facilities because of need or alternative values, this is still a free country to raise our families as we see fit. Is it not? Are they really making daycare for everyone. How much of the demand can they actually meet with this structure. For the Conservatives to give direct payment to every child under six they estimated 10 billion over five years. How much will it cost per child in a Martin plan. I would like to know. Then I will know if he is making an investment we can acutally afford. That still ignores the fact I am not sure what a state educated child would embrace as values. As a parent I may think any cost would be to great.

I thought their plan was to involve all the provinces. How will they ensure anything? This is smoke and mirrors and very expensive ones. Province by province deals. So you think Alberta will listen when Ottawa orders and with Ottawa needing the approval of Ontario who will call the shots? After reading this posts I wonder why sometimes. The debate never becomes dialogue. Entrenched ideology. As for the private capitalist villains out there that want to put kids in harms way and cut safety corners for profits. I could say the same of lazy union government workers who don't care or like their jobs and wait for the next round of negotiations to extort the public for another raise. Both are ridiculous assertions.

Here it is a Conservative Majority: 155 seats The Liberals are creating their own perfect storm. Negative comments Chow, and Beer and Pop corn. In the back drop of entitlements and Gomery. No vision campaign. With little room to move as the Conservatives have laid out a moderate path on most major policy planks. And to cap it off a RCMP investigation of the Finance Department. Come on even the die hards have to admit this can't be good for momentum. I see a split and the NDP will pick up in Vancouver and Toronto. The Conservatives will pick up else where. Wow, can Goodale loose the last seat in Sask. The perfect storm I tell you. And Copps is on the war path. The story is far from over but they are digging a hole.

I have to add that the Conservative plan also looks for matching investment dollars. They intend to make available $250 000 000.00 in tax incentives for private delivery providers to reinvest in new spaces. The Liberal problem with this is that it is not early child hood learning but day care. I must remind the Liberal's out there that the Montessori program is privately run through out Canada and under the Conservative plan would be able to expand with help. This is leveraging a greater level of investment and the provision level with a built in incentive to provide value. I know I would never want my business to fail, but when has a government center gone out of business? Interested in the Montessori progarm: Link I was asked about the sports program tax rebate. It is offer to every child under 16 yrs. $500.00 per year.

Blubber, I think I am a typical Conservative, whatever that would be. We have a diverse party like the other three main parties but here goes what I would say on the GST thing. This will not fix all things and it may in itself fix very little, but it is the right thing to do. Consumption taxes are paid by everyone and it is more efficient to cut it for everyone than it is to have some sort of rebate scheme. How does a typical conservative think you can best serve the poor? * You need different things from different levels of Canadian society. (Federal, Provincial, Municipalities, Communities, Non Profits) * Local government need to tailor programs to fit local needs. * You create opportunities for education and work experience. * Local charities and community groups need access to grants and tax credits. They are better positioned to use innovation and meet the individual’s one on one. * To actually help someone transform their life they need mentoring and relationships that they can choose to participate in. * We need to have a health system that supports people with metal health issues. * Drug education, prevention and rehabilitation have to be accessible to the most vulnerable. * You don't tax them they have enough challenges. You can't be paternal and tell people how they should be helped. You need to create opportunities to come along side individuals, learn from their experience and they can learn from yours. They have to choose knew opportunities and the opportunities have to be available. If you build it they will not come. You have to first create the grass roots relationships that will build the change from the bottom up. You need leaders that create leaders not a benevolent dictator who claims to know best. Rant done, from a typical Conservative.

The growth rate is a development issue and not a race issue. Western Europe happens to be very well developed. Below I pointed out the Japanese approach to their issues with declining birth rates. At the same time areas like Africa are still doubling in population every 10 years. They have large populations of individuals under 50yrs. I am confused by population predictions. The disease in the developing world has a shortened life span and a reduction in population growth would to me make future population growth volatile to predict. If for example India and China do become developed countries is it reasonable to believe in 15 – 20 years they may be reporting declining birth rates. So how as a world community can we move the undeveloped world into a modern economy quickly enough not to explode the population and create a long term sustainable planet? This is why I think this discussion can be valuable. Every life is valuable and the ignore Africa approach by the west can not continue. At the same time sending food aid and health care is far from a solution and may only make the long term challenge more dire and less sustainable. What is it in a developed country that has us choose not to reproduce? Source Source Population calculator Population Calculator Population 2005-12-29 1. China 1,310,070,985 2. India 1,087,764,087 3. USA 297,083,330 4. Indonesia 243,713,771 5. Brazil 187,091,084 World 6,482,572,352 Source

If you make less than $22 000.00 a year in Alberta you don't have to pay health premiums. Read the form next time. You have a space to apply for exemption. The onus is on you to apply. I went to school in Alberta an never had to pay, but yes I did have to apply for my exemption. People always want to blame someone else for there misfortune. The Alberta culture is one of self reliance so you best get used to pulling up those boot straps. Jobs don't work themselves.

Good post Kimmy, and I just wanted to add a little timely context. The Conservative position is the same as what they have done in England and a couple of weeks back was endorsed by Elton John. He celebrated this right to civil union. If it was good enough for Elton it is good enough for me. Under the Conservative plan if an individual church thought it right to sanctify the union as marriage they could do that. It would be in the church context to debate the theology behind such decision and not up to our charter or our politicians. In keeping the church and state separate, sanctification represented in marriage is a church debate to me. While the legal union is definitely a state decision. On that matter a number of churches in Canada would already agree to sanctifying Gay Marriage. (e.g. United Church in Vancouver) So all I have argued would take place only if a free vote turned over the current position and a new law was put in its place that may then be challenged under the Charter. The Conservatives did state they would not use the not with standing clause and so if it was overturned we would be back where we started. So practically, what is the big deal?

Residential schools were run by our government. Was that not an unhealthy situation? What makes you think our federal government is in a good position to manage child care in such a diverse country with diverse needs? Add up for a middle class working family with two kids the difference after the Conservatives put this policy in place. Two kids equal $2400.00 in additional income. $1000.00 tax credit if they participate in organized sports. %2 reduction in consumption tax on every book, sheet and clothes they need to buy. This program does not matter where you live or how much you make. (If you make less than $20000.00 you don't pay income taxes any way but will in a relative way be much better off with this modest increase.) This program also does not discriminate shift workers, rural workers or anyone who doesn't work for government 9 - 5 Monday - Friday in a large urban center. This plan is also not contingent on years of bargaining with the provinces to implement. It can happen immediately. Now with the fiscal imbalance being addressed the provinces which are in a better position to implement a plan for early childhood education can do as they see fit. The voters at local levels can make this a priority and we can achieve a system that fits the needs of each region and not a bureaucratic design created in Ottawa. Very articulate, it reminds me of a school yard with five year olds "your a stupid head, no your a stupid head, oh ya your a super duper stupid head." Please show a little more respect for the intelligence of the average person on this site. I may not agree with my lefty friends but I don't think they are stupid heads.

Wow, I am I wrong or do some of you take things a little to seriously. This is just some article pointing to a reduction in birth rate for developed nations. The article did also point out that the reduction was occurring in Japan. This is an economic phenomenon more than cultural. In Canada we are not replacing ourselves but we have a healthy immigration policy and that is a good thing. As our baby boom ages we will need a younger generation to continue an economy that can pay for the large population bubble in their most expensive years. Yes we still need the younger generation, but just not as localized or direct as earlier generations. We still take a portion of income to pay for those how then are more vulnerable or reliant on the social services our modern society has created. I am surprised to see the numbers for Russia. I would have thought they would still be having more babies, as this tends to correlate with poverty more than anything else. The US for example has a large disparity in income and the large families are not the rich ones. As demographics can help inform policy challenges and decisions this is outside of the biblical reference something to consider as we plan for the future. Good book on demographic trends, “Boom Bust and Echo”.

Time to let it go. Bert is on the team. Higher powers have decided.

Kinda tasteless for Christmas. A little political correctness would be appertained for at least on day.

A blessing to you all, Merry Christmas. Willy

I disagree. People can vote for them if they want. We don't need any more control than the signatures from the riding on the nomination papers. Much to do about nothing...

BB, not my study. We were asked for research I Googled and there you go. If you have a problem go to the site I provided a link. You can look at their methodology. Facts can be in the eye of the beholder.

legamus, Ah and a study on wait times, National Center for Policy Analysis