Melanie_

Anita Neville, a Liberal MP here in Winnipeg, is asking that Brian Pallister's expenses for his leadership bid be examined. Her argument is that he is using his perks as an MP (particularly his staff paid for by Ottawa) to run his campaign for the provincial Conservative leadership. No hard evidence that I've seen yet, we'll see how this plays out.

When you can't refute the argument, discredit the speaker.

This seems contradictory - on the one hand, you are willing to recognize unions of men and women not joined by a church as marriages, but on the other hand you are saying that religion is the only way to validate a marriage. Personally, I don't care if any religion ever recognizes SSM, as their acceptance or rejection is meaningless to anyone who doesn't subscribe to their dogma. Marriage is a legal term, not a religious term, so as long as the law of the land recognizes SSM, the marriages are valid.

These protesters were peacefully trying to promote understanding of their perspective. They were insulted by the cartoons, and were letting it be known. I really don't see a problem with this.

You're a real ladies' man, I'm sure.

What limits are we willing to set on free speech, then? Who gets to speak freely, on what issues, in what contexts? I understand your concern, newbie, but it is a slippery slope. Remember the words of Some Great Thinker - "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The problem with your statement is that it opens the doors to discrimination on any conceivable basis - skin colour, ethnic origin, religion, gender, age, even hair colour. The government shouldn't have to tell anyone to treat all people equally - I'd like to see it just being inherent in each of our personal value systems.

Here's a quote from Leafless' link. Seems to me they were just exercising their right to free speech, just as those who published the cartoons did. Peaceful protests are a legitimate form of expression in our country, aren't they?

Your system operates so differently from the one here. Licensed family child care providers are inspected every three months at minimum by the government licensing body, but are completely free agents in terms of who they provide care for, the hours they set, etc. Parents apply for subsidy and are approved or not based on their incomes, but they can freely choose any centre or licensed family child care home in the system. Here licensed homes really do operate as independent businesses, but as I said are still subject to the licensing and regulatory requirements.

We lefties are all white wine drinking socialists - I don't know where this gold buillion idea is coming from.

I have never said that I don't value family child care providers. They are a very important part of the system, and can often provide the flexibility child care centres cannot, but I still believe they should be subject to inspections and regulations. I don't know what child care settings you've been in, but the ones I know (and I see many on a regular basis) are generally designed to be warm and cozy, not the institutional box you are determined to evoke. The value of learning through play is part of any good child care program, with toys and activities chosen based on the ages of the children and a recognition of the stages of development they are in, as well as through observing their interests and building on them. As for the value of training programs, I am a college instructor in child development, so I have a bias. I can't answer for the training of the people in Quebec, but as I've said before, the Quebec system expanded quickly, trying to meet the needs of families without ensuring that the best quality care was available for children. You can't train common sense into people, anyway - bringing kids in out of the cold is a no-brainer.

No Fawlty Towers or Monty Python? No Mel Brooks? (My favourite is Space Balls.) You're missing out, man!

Hope springs eternal.

Pallister may be the only one who wants it. Reminds me of the federal Liberal leadership - begging for candidates!

Yes, and also I read from another old article that they have increased the ratio of children per adult. This is also one of my concern....that eventually, the standard will be lowered...and they will end up like our bloated classrooms with so many students per teacher. If the National Childcare is already in place, would it matter how much we complain about the lowered standard? We'll end up stuck with it. I'm all for quality care. And I'm all for quality care that includes the introductions of good values to young children....didn't we learn these from home? tml, if any child is left outside, it is a crime, and whoever is responsible needs to be stripped of their license (assuming they are licensed) and charged with negligence. But that isn't indicitive of child care in general, just someone being incompetent. That is why ensuring quality is so important - incompetence in some jobs will just result in a minor blunder, but in child care it can have devastating results. I wonder, though, how you think the Conservative plan will guard against this kind of practice? Reducing the money going to wages, reducing the money going into training programs, reducing the money going into licensing and regulating bodies, is likely to have an even more detrimental effect. And regardless of $1200, families will still need child care. Betsy, when you are worried about standards being lowered, think about what Harper has said about standards. Nothing. He is just giving money to parents and saying find whatever is out there. You asked earlier about the public child care that is already available. Each province also has a budget for child care, and I expect that they will maintain that, despite the loss of the money from the bilateral agreements. What I find ironic here is Harper's rhetoric about more power to the provinces, and then he goes around them in making a federal program for child care, rather than just transferring the money as the Liberals were doing.

Care to give it another try, Shoop?

OK, Belinda may have had some other motivations as well.....

And what will they do with the child after they turn three? There will still be a need for child care with this proposal. If you read my post, you will see that I did put my career on semi-hold while my younger children were small, but not everyone can afford to do this. Quality has been defined in many ways, and you are right that caregiver turnover is an indicator of poor quality of care. But that isn't restricted to child care centres; unlicensed caregivers also often decide to look for other employment. The solution is to have good wages so people can actually earn a decent living, and to ensure that the ratios are such that caregivers aren't overloaded with too many children, leading not only to staff burnout but also to less individualized care. I am not a defender of Quebec's system, so I can't answer your last question. I suspect the problem is in trying to expand the system far too quickly, without the necessary infrastructure and training to support it.

The people of Vancouver elected him based on lies and deceit. Read posts from Vancouver King if you think they are happy about the defection. And Belinda didn't cross to bring the government down, she crossed because she disagreed with Harper's right wing agenda.

Back to the original topic, although the side debate was pretty interesting.... I know this is a bit late, but perhaps overshadowed by the cabinet positions that were doled out. Brian Pallister was elected federally, but he asked not to be given a cabinet seat so he could keep his options open for the provincial leadership race. His story is that it was too late to back out of the nomination process by the time the election was called, but you'll notice I started this thread November 10, well before the election was called. This will probably end up being the first byelection of Harper's government.

It certainly would have been inappropriate for Bush to talk at Mrs. King's funeral about politics she wasn't involved in. Advocating for her life's work was completely appropriate, on the other hand.

No, I'm saying the current Conservative proposal is leaving the poor behind, not that it I advocate it. And if child care is to be regulated, who but the government should do it? I'm open to another system, perhaps building on an independent accreditation system (Manitoba is exploring the possibility right now), but that is years away, and the Conservatives cancelling the bilateral agreement might pull the plug on the project anyway. I understand your dilemma, and it is why I stayed home for a number of years when my two younger children were small. Despite making at the time $30,000/year, paying for child care was too expensive for me to work full time. I was able to teach evening courses, and do consulting work around my children's and husband's schedules, but that meant managing a timetable that I look back on and cringe. Reading your story, I wonder if the Conservative plan to encourage companies to open centres would really benefit anyone - do you think Superstore is going to buy in to it? I agree the costs are prohibitive - so what is the solution? Increases to subsidy levels? Many here will scream that its just going to fund those selfish trips to the Carribean. All women staying home? August makes a good point that we don't value the work done in the home enough, but I also think I spent all those years in University so that I could have the opportunity to make use of my education, and I do believe the work I do now is also valuable. Don't have kids unless you can afford them? My crystal ball is cloudy right now, I don't know what I will be able to afford as my kids grow up. Life happens, and I think people do their best with what they've got (cue the violins). Investing in young, growing families will return more money through taxes than people think, and investing in a quality system will make sure we aren't just warehousing 3 year olds in front of someone's TV.

Dual income families still pay the cost of daycare, so thier income goes down considerably. And thats OK, they should pay the cost. What I want to see is that the care that is available is of good quality, and that comes from a regulated system. The $1200 doesn't really help the poorer people anyway, as they will lose it in their taxes, in their reduced GST cheques, and in their reduced Child Tax Benefit cheques. It will probably even cause the subsidized parent's child care fees to increase, as their subsidy is based on their taxable income, which will rise, so there will be little net benefit to the poor.

One of the points constantly made about the appointments is the importance of optics. I just think this particular optic was overlooked - I don't know if he intended to defect, I suspect he didn't, but it sure can be made to look like he did, can't it?

And when the mandate is weak, go poaching and bring over the unethical from the other side....