Melanie_

Don't know his name, but I think I'd have lunch with the leader of the marijuana party. I'm sure he knows where to get the best munchies!

Hurray, onlythetruth is back! We needed some comic relief around here!

Many marriages function just fine without religion, believe it or not (I suspect you will not). You don't need to have a religious ceremony to be joined in marriage, but the word still applies. Churches have always had the right to refuse to marry someone who doesn't conform to their beliefs, and that still stands, which is why they can't have the monopoly on the word "marriage" - it is accessible to all, regardless of their religious beliefs or sexual orientation. Do we really need to have this debate again?

We discuss politics constantly in my house, so when elections come around everyone has an opinion, including the 10 year old. But we all tend to agree on how to vote (we have three eligible voters now, and one disgruntled teenager who thinks it is vastly unjust that 16 year olds can't vote).

Supporting them when they are wrong, just to pander to the inequality of the economic relationship, can hardly be called moral at all.

Yeah, that's worked out so well for the Americans.

I guess I can be glad I'm not a female Conservative!

I've often wondered why there are so few women here as well, although lately we've had quite a few new women to the board. Do you think women are just less interested in politics? Less willing to debate? Feel less likely to be taken seriously?

NDP = 108 women running, 308 candidates overall Bloc = 23 women, 75 candidates overall Liberal = 79 women, 308 candidates overall Green = 72 women, 308 candidates overall Conservative = 38 women, 308 candidates overall

I agree. I just was wondering what the issue was for the previous posters. I may be misinterpreting, but it sounds to me like an objection to Muslim schools in general. .

My marriage (20 years) is interracial, and we've never encountered any issues; I don't know if that is just the luck of the draw, or if it is an indication of tolerance. Or maybe we just haven't gone to the right places.

The Conservative party is running 38 women out of 308 candidates. I don't know much about the women's groups listed there, but I can see why they might be concerned about a Conservative government.

If there can be Catholic schools, why shouldn't there also be Muslim schools? Are you against the idea of a Muslim school in general, or are you just offended that they wanted to change it from a Catholic one?

How do you plan to pay for all that?

I'm going to be kind and say you should maybe read a few of the threads before asking such a broad question. Better yet, go to the party's websites, get some info there, and come back prepared to contribute to the discussion.

I occasionally gave my kids a swat on the bum, but pretty rarely. Mostly I just set firm rules and followed through with consequences when they broke them (ie, for a 5 year old, playing outside when I was in the house, going past the fence of the third house down meant that you were indoors for the rest of the day). I wanted them to see that their actions would have logical consequences, and the consequences would be connected to the actions. I think it makes more sense than a spanking, and the lesson is learned. I agree with Black Dog, though, that if you want a child to learn not to hit, hitting them yourself defeats the purpose. The logical consequence would be that I don't like being hit, and I'm not going to sit in front of the child to get hit again. She can either put her shoes on herself or come to the car as she is. I think more parents today are concerned with being their kid's friend, and not wanting to seem too tough on them. I've always taken the perspective that my kids have plenty of friends, but only one mom, and its not a popularity contest.

This isn't an area I'm well informed in, either, but I think we all probably should be. Today's Winnipeg Free Press has a front page story about Phil Fontaine, the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, being concerned about Harper's agenda. Would he honour the Kelowna accord? Monte Solberg has said no; Steven Fletcher said they needed to renegotiate a legislative framework (I'm not sure what this means). The other concern is regarding the compensation package negotiated for the victims of residential school abuse. The Conservatives have said they would honour it, with "slight adjustments", but haven't said what those would be. It took so long for an agreement to be reached, I wonder what kinds of adjustments haven't already been debated and discarded in reaching this point?

Harper's plan will not support the provinces in licensing or monitoring, or providing subsidies for the working poor. We already know that $100/month is not going to pay for the care, especially when the parent is going to lose most of it in taxes (I'm standing by the Caledon Institute's numbers on this one). Large corporations might start up centres for their employees, if they choose to, but there are no guarantees. Small businesses won't make use of the tax breaks - I'm curious if there would be tax breaks available to several small businesses pooling their resources and opening a centre together, but that smacks a bit too much of socialism, I suspect, for the Conservatives to support. Private centres here in Manitoba pay their employees significantly less than the non profit centres, which means that there is a revolving door of staff. If you are trying to make a profit for your business, yet trying to balance what parents can reasonably afford to pay, you are not going to be paying your staff decent wages. Kids need consistent caregivers, and the caregivers need to earn a wage that lets them move out of their parents' basements and be able to afford a life of their own. Its not an easy job in the first place, and when you get paid beans to do it, there isn't a lot of incentive to stay working in the field. Most people get into it because they love children, but that doesn't pay the bills. The Liberal plan allows provinces to supplement the wages that centres are able to pay, and gives some income support to family child care as well.

Thats the Accesibility piece of the QUAD principles. Child care needs to be flexible enough to meet the needs of all parents, wherever they are. This might simply mean there is a licensing body in place to ensure that the nice lady down the street doesn't have a criminal record, or show up on the child abuse registry. And CES, there is no reason that worksite child care wouldn't also be an option in the Liberal plan, and it actually might be more likely to occur in smaller towns. Large corporations, the ones most likely to take advantage of tax breaks, don't generally set up shop in rural and northern communities; provincial governments are more likely to look at the needs of all of their constituents and open child care spaces where they are needed.

That may apply to the royalty of Europe in the early 20th century, as well.

CES - but how do you find out? The majority of the child care you are questioning is under the table, as most families end up using patchwork child care of neighbours, grandparents, the nice lady down the street, etc. If they pay for these services (and I doubt many grandparents are being paid) it is undeclared income for most of the providers, so we are not going to see a lot of disclosure. This leads to the question of the underground economy the Conservative plan would perpetuate. Aside from the fact that most of the providers don't pay taxes on the under the table income they receive, they also are ineligible for employment benefits. That means that these providers, the majority of them women, would not be paying into CPP, EI, Worker's Compensation, etc. They are ineligible for maternity leave, even though it is reasonable to expect that many of them will have babies during the time they are providing care. We're talking about the ghettoization (is that a word?) of a segment of the population that is necessary for people to be able to work and earn the benefits that are being denied child care providers.

Actually, I'd like to see Hugo as Intergovernmental Affairs, but I just checked his profile and he hasn't been on since September. For those of you who are more new to the forum, he was the biggest anarchist ever, but amazingly articulate about it - check out some of the older threads.

The Liberal policy is the money must encorporate the QUAD principles - Quality, Universality, Accessibility, Developmental. The provinces spend the money as it works in their system, as long as those principles are upheld. The Conservative policy is we don't need a system, or any accountability, just give the money away with no strings attached.

Well, at least you know you can count on this forum for direction.... Hydraboss? Are you still here? Hydraboss???????