Melanie_

In ancient Egypt, Pharoahs married their sisters, if I remember some dusty book I read years ago correctly. I wonder how that genetically impacted the royal line?

Do you think your corporation would take advantage of the tax breaks Harper is offering for corporations to start daycare centres for their employees?

Hydraboss - that is the Liberal plan. Send the money to the provinces, have them administer it, based on the bilateral agreeements signed. That's why we are talking about so many different systems. Harper has already said he will only honour the bilateral agreements until June of this year, and then the money won't go to the provinces, but will be reorganized into money directly to parents and tax breaks for corporations.

Ok, I'll play this one. Grudgingly for the sake of argument I'll give you the position of PM (for now, with a reservation to depose you after another glass of wine). Deputy Prime Minister: Black Dog - he'll balance you out. Minister of Finance: Canuck E Stan - this position needs a sense of humour, after all! Minister of the Environment: Eureka Minister of Foreign Affairs: August 1991, who knows his way around the globe Minister of National Defence: Army Guy (haven't seen him around lately, though) Minister of Justice: Theloneous Fleabag - a great sense of right and wrong, just warped enough to keep it interesting. Or perhaps FTA Lawyer, although I haven't seen him in a while, either. Minister of Health: no one really jumps to mind, are there nominations from the floor? Minister of Social Development: ME!

Part of the problem, as I've said before, is that you are talking about one system, and I am talking about something else completely, yet when we use the words "child care" we assume we are both talking about the same thing. Child care is a provincial responsibility, and each province has different standards and regulations, so what you experience in Alberta is completely different from what I experience in Manitoba. For example, your statement below doesn't necessarily apply in Manitoba; there are licensed family child care homes and child care centres that operate overnight care for shift workers, that have extended hours so farmers can get their crops off the field, etc. Family child care is a necessary part of the system. Canuck E Stan, I agree that there should be more support for parents who stay at home. But we are confusing two seperate issues here. Giving parents a tax benefit is a great idea, but it doesn't build a system of child care for those who legitimately need it.

I'm not going to claim I did the math, because I am no mathematician. But the Caledon Institute is a well respected, non partisan think tank that doesn't just pull these things out of its hat. Their credibility is not in question for me.

Yet this is what Harper proposes by opening the door for the big box Walmart sized daycares waiting for the go ahead to come up from the US. When he talks about tax breaks for corporations to set up daycares, who do you think that will mean? Small businesses aren't going to take him up on that - the tax break isn't worth it to them.

Just to be clear, I'm giving my interpretation of what has been said by the Liberals - I believe this to be what Martin means. Early childhood learning recognizes that children are learning throughout childhood; learning doesn't start when they turn 5 and go to kindergarten. But the learning is not the academic education the school system provides; it is physical, social, and emotional, as well as cognitive. No one is saying that parents and grandparents can't provide this. But the majority of children will not spend all of their time at home with a parent before entering the school system, and more and more grandmothers (such as myself) are still in the workforce, or living too far away. Quality child care means that, when you care for groups of children, you need to understand how to meet the needs of the group while still meeting individual needs, and provide activities and experiences that will be age appropriate and foster learning. This is not limited to child care centres. Family child care providers are a natural choice for many parents, as it allows children to be in a homelike setting. Another option is part time Nursery school. Early learning happens in all settings, its more about ensuring that there are some standards and accountability for the public money that goes to support child care. Climbing off of my soapbox......

Betsy, you are right in saying that there is nothing wrong with early learning at home - I'm assuming you mean with a parent at home. I stayed at home, as I've mentioned before, when my younger two children were small. It was good for me, good for them, not so good for my career or for our family income. But for most families, that just isn't an option. A system doesn't mean that every child is in child care, any more than having a health system means that we all have heart bypass surgery. A system means that, when a service is needed, it is available. The Liberal child care plan talks about the QUAD principles of Quality, Universality, Accessibility, and Development - the Conservative plan does nothing on any of those fronts. The Conservative plan is short sighted and fondly looks back to a time when women had no options but to stay barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. <edit> Yes, the best form of welfare is a job, but you can't work if you don't have child care.

Its not my calculator - I'm just the messenger. Check out the link for all the math.

Jerry - I don't see a means test attached to the $1200 "Choices in Child Care" platform. In reality, it will be of most benefit to high income families with one parent staying at home, and will provide least benefit to the working poor. It will reduce their eligibility for Child Tax Benefits and for GST rebates, in addition to being clawed back as a taxable benefit. The Caledon Institute of Social Policy has done some calculations about what the net benefit to families will be. A single working parent earning $27,000 would net $481. A two earner couple earning $36,000 would net $388. A family with one parent working and one parent at home, with a total income of $33,000, would net $650. A two earner couple earning $100,000 would net $778. A family with one parent working and one parent at home, with a total income of $100,000 would net $1032. http://www.caledoninst.org/

I live in a big house in an affluent neighbourhood, and have taken my share of nice holidays in the sun rather than enduring a Winnipeg winter (well, maybe not all of my share, I think I could definitely do with another right about now). But I don't begrudge my tax dollars helping others who are struggling to make ends meet; your view is very self serving, and I wonder if you meant for it to come across as selfish as it did - or is it just my interpretation?

And yet, you can't muster an argument against any of the points......

I would change your response to say: If you value each person independently working in their own best interests, regardless of how that impacts their fellow Canadians; if you value punitive actions taken when someone doesn't follow the predetermined "correct" lifestyle (think single parents in need of child care); if you value the Eagle over the Beaver; vote Conservative.

As a college instructor, I have to say that I would write in red ink (actually I use purple) all over any paper that used an internet forum as a reference. Its a good idea to do some research that you will be able to use as a reliable source, rather than seeking intuitive opinions. Not that I don't respect the opinions expressed here.....

Even though I agree with Newbie, I have to say, Canuck, that was pretty funny!

Winnipeg South - Reg Alcock really faces no competition. Liberal win. Winnipeg South Centre - tough fight between Conservative Ken Cooper and Liberal Raymond Simard, but I expect Simard to pull it out in the end. Winnipeg Centre - NDP Pat Martin in a landslide.

What if it is consensual? Say, for example, biological siblings raised in different households, never knowing each other, then meeting as adults and entering into a sexual relationship? Or for that matter, a parent and child - the classic story of Oedipus and his mother. In these cases, our gut reaction is revulsion, but is it really such a bad thing? And if it is, why?

Stephen Harper only uses private health care? Anyway, it sounds from the article like Layton was unaware that the clinic was not a public facility; he just went where his doctor referred him. Any implied endorsement of private health care seems to be unintentional.

Canuck, I'm curious where you see Manitoba's independent seat coming from, since you seem committed to the idea. The Churchill riding, where the formerly NDP MP is now running as an Independent? She's got some tough competition up there, and it will be a race to watch.

In answer to your question, is rape a part of Islamic culture, I'll ask you to consult the Koran. Show me where the Koran endorses rape, and you'll have your answer.

Part of the problem here is we are talking about 10 provinces and 3 territories, each with a different system. The examples given by Betsy would not happen in Manitoba, for example, because the systems are so different - obviously the system in her province doesn't favour the working poor. That doesn't have to be the system adopted by a national program. Who said all employees would be unionized? Who said irregular schedules can't be accommodated? I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over in this thread, but licensed family day care homes and licensed centres can operate with extended hours, evenings, weekends, and overnight care. And unionization can happen in private or public child care centres, if it does come to pass. The Conservative plan will do nothing to create spaces in rural Canada. It will do nothing to create affordable, accessible spaces for the working poor. It does nothing to ensure that children with disabilities will be able to access care. It does nothing to ensure that a caregiver won't just take in more and more children, and park them in front of the TV all day. And before you say, "Well, the parents need to make sure their children are being cared for properly", remember that the Conservative plan doesn't create any spaces, so parents will be left to take whatever arrangements they can find. There is no point in giving someone $1200 and saying "go find child care" when there is no care to be found.

But perhaps not a dictionary to check their spelling.....

I have news for you, jc, you used daycare. It may not have been licensed, it may have been casual, it may have consisted of a procession of short term arrangements, but it was daycare. The national program is not about subsidizing everyone. People will still pay a user fee, unless they are very low income. The program is more about making sure good quality care is available for those who need it. The moms you left your son with could have simply applied for a license and undergone an inspection, and they would have qualified for any funding the national program is doling out.

There are centres and licensed family child care homes that offer extended hour care, evening and overnight care, and weekend care - the myth of the 9 to 5 hours is something the Conservatives like to promote, even though it isn't true. The Liberal plan could expand these programs to meet the needs of even more families; the Conservative plan would invest in even larger corporate big box child care centres, likely only in urban settings, whose mandate is profit rather than serving the needs of children and their families.