Melanie_

I'm not a fan of the NDP childcare platform, either. The liberal plan was going to expand the regulated daycare systems the provinces already had in place - each province had negotiated a deal with the Feds, to receive funding to enhance thier existing programs. The Feds only stipulation was that the care provided needed to follow the QUAD principles - Quality, Universal (as in universally available, not that every child must attend), Accessible (children with special needs, rural and Northern communities), and Developmentally appropriate. There is nothing irresponsible in wanting quality child care for your kids.

This is an off topic thread that seems to mostly be about you anyway. But you're right, I should play the ball, not the player. Try to do the same.

Surprise! Three ways happen in Canada, too! Speculating on his wife's sex life is not really relevent, though. Whatever her tastes were, the charges are against him.

Aren't you sweet, trying to be all condescending? No worries, you aren't going to make me angry, I just find your incredible ego really amusing.

Reread my post. I said people can afford it, they are willing to pay for it, but they want programs that are licensed and regulated. That includes child abuse registry checks, first aid certification, health and safety standards, and a basic understanding of child development. It isn't good enough to just park your kid in front of someone's TV for the day. And as I have stated, the thread is about whether or not Harper is doing a good job, and I keep pointing out that he has dropped the ball on his promises regarding child care. It's not about whether or not you like what he promised, it's about whether or not he has kept that promise.

"The largest mass grave ever known on the face of the earth?" Is this hyperbole, or do you have something to back this statement up?

Many parents can afford daycare. Other parents might qualify for a subsidy based on a sliding scale, depending on their income. This isn't really about paying for daycare, its about creating a safe, regulated, licensed system. The daycares in Canada aren't empty, they have waiting lists two years long because there simply aren't enough spaces - many parents put their names on waiting lists when they find out they are pregnant, hoping for a spot when their maternity leave ends. Harper promised 125,000 new spaces over 5 years; there was supposed to be 25,000 new spaces per year, but not a single space has been created yet. They didn't have a hot clue what to do to create those spaces. Instead, they reneged on signed deals with the provinces, discarding a promising program that was designed to meet the different needs identified by each province. Now they really wish everyone would forget about the promise of spaces and just focus on the $100/month, but unfortunately its tax season and people are finding out just how much of that $1200 they actually get to keep. (See the numbers from Ontario I posted earlier in this thread.) No matter what you say about the rest of Harper's government, he has done a very poor job with child care.

If your position is non-negotiable there is no reason for you to come to a discussion board. You've made up your mind, and aren't open to hearing other people's perspectives, you just like the sound of your own fingers on the keyboard. If you aren't here for respectful dialogue, don't bother coming back.

Now that Chauchee's been banned, I guess I'll have to resort to reading UShaditComing's posts for comic relief....

Catholic News Another misinformed decision regarding kirpans. It sounds like the Catholics understood and respected the Sikh perspective, but the Secret Service is being thick headed about this.

It sounds like you had a really bad experience with licensed child care, which unfortunately can happen. It doesn't mean that your experience is common to everyone who uses licensed child care, though. There are just as many (probably more) horror stories about unlicensed care. Regulations are in place to ensure that health and safety standards are met, staff have the required training, and there are acceptable adult to child ratios. The conservative plan does nothing to ensure any of those things are in place. My beef with the UCCB is that it is taxable income, and is a greater benefit to people with higher incomes than it is to those with lower incomes. If it were as "universal" as the name implies, it would deliver the same benefit to everyone equally. Also, regardless of whether or not someone supports a national child care plan, the Conservatives did promise to create 25,000 new spaces per year. They've been in office two years now, and not a single space has been created. Obviously, a promise they haven't delivered on.

But is there a reason to have two different ages of consent - 16 for heterosexuals and 18 for homosexuals?

Do you even read what you are writing? How can you accuse someone else of stepping over the lines of decency when you post drivel like this:

Rue, I think you're right, this guy is a poser. I've never heard a First Nations person refer to their language as Indian. If he were truly aboriginal he would say Cree, or Saultaux, or Ojibway, or Mohawk.... he would not call his language Indian. Get some help, Chauchee. There are good mental health professionals where ever you are. Find one.

I found a quote from another article at the Caledon Institute that explains it well... Still can't make a link! Here's the article info, though.... More Than a Name Change: The Universal Child Care Benefit by Ken Battle, Sherri Torjman and Michael Mendelson May 2006

The people who benefit most from this program are single income two parent families with a net income of over $200,000/year - after taxes and reductions they will keep $1076 of the $1200. The ones who benefit least are two income families with a net income of $30,000/year - after taxes and reductions they will keep $199 of the $1200 (Ontario numbers). This is because it is taxed on the lower income - for a single income family the lower income is $0. Also, the lower income two earner family loses other benefits because their pretax income has increased by $1200/year - this may impact their eligibility for child care subsidy, Child Tax Credit, GST cheques, etc. The losses easily outstrip the benefit of the $100/month. Go to the Caledon Institute of Public Policy and read the article, "The Incredible Shrinking $1200 Child Care Allowance: How to Fix It", by Ken Battle (April 2006). Its a PDF, and it isn't letting me make a link, but there is a great table in the article that shows how the money translates to real dollars for families at all income levels.

People can't be discriminated on based on their sexual orientation; that's exactly what the government is doing by holding one standard for heterosexuals and another for homosexuals. Sure there are homophobes out there - its up to the rest of us to disempower them. They have no business telling other people how to live their lives.

Hugs and kisses to you too, Leafy!

I understand what you are saying, but I hate to see a troll disrupt the forum, driving away people who actually can contribute meaningfully to the topics. Don't stay away long. Leafless, reread my post. I was giving "US had it coming" the benefit of the doubt, even though his choice of screen name is obviously imflammatory. Of course its OK to have diverse views. That's why we come to discussion forums, to hear what others have to say; sometimes we agree with them, and sometimes we don't. You seem to think that if someone disagrees with you, and expresses that disagreement, they are trying to inhibit your free speech. It would be a pretty boring forum, though, if we all just sat around agreeing with each other!

It is a great forum, with diverse views that are generally discussed with respect. You've started out here with a poor choice for a screen name, displaying your bias; you may be happy to have found the forum, but I will have to wait a bit and read more of your posts before I know if I'm happy you have found us. Here's hoping you're a positive addition to our community!

Two days left to vote for wildcard cities - Winnipeg and Quebec City are in the running.

I’m having a hard time with this law. I understand the reasoning behind it; it certainly is a health hazard for children to be exposed to second hand smoke in confined spaces. But legislating against smoking in cars is micromanaging peoples’ parenting. I’d rather see more of a public education campaign (there is a nasty commercial on TV showing mouth cancer as I write this) so that parents are aware of the damage they are doing to their kids. Criminalizing parents isn’t going to help the kids.

Wow, Xul, that is one scary picture of the guy! I don't know if I'd want him teaching my kids anything!

This is priceless! I'm tempted to change my tagline to Commie Lady, but I'm too attached to Feminist Granny at the moment. Thanks for the laugh, Leafless!

Here you go, Chauchee, I'll tie the two topics together. I was listening to Carole King (what else would a feminist granny listen to? ) and thought of you..... Smackwater Jack