Melanie_

Betsy, parents raise their children. Providing quality child care with some boundaries and regulations is not intruding on parents rights, it is supporting them in finding good places for their children to learn and grow while they are at work. No one is saying all children need to go to daycare; the national child care program is just hoping to ensure that those who do need the service have it available to them.

Charles Adler is an egocentric windbag, and his columns are more about promoting "Adler Nation" (adulation?) than about furthering political debate. Quote someone of substance, and we can talk.

I was in Florida a few years ago, and they laughed their a**es off every time I spoke! I know I say "eh", but had no idea how often, until I was asked to pick apart the semantics and explain when it was appropriate, how I knew when to say it, etc. But a bigger surprise was when I said "no doubt about it" and had them falling off their chairs laughing and repeating, "Noo doot aboot it!" Thats OK, though, as I smirked everytime I heard "y'all", and its plural, "all y'all".

Woohoo, Betsy! A bold prediction for the Green party! I for one would really like to see them get a few seats, but my riding is pretty safe for Reg Alcock, so I know it won't be here.

I'll admit to occasionally reading the boards when I'm at work, but very rarely posting.

Happy New Year to Greg, MLW, and all the forum members who keep the debates interesting, informative, funny, provoking, challenging, and fascinating! I am raising my wine glass to all of you!

I am really tired of hearing about how this is about choice, implying that those who don't stay at home are bad parents. Some of you are basically saying that you should stay at home, here is a few bucks to replace your salary, and if you don't stay home you are a bad parent anyway so substandard care is all your kid deserves. Kids, you should all be raised by self sacrificing martyrs, who gladly wear rags and eat Kraft Dinner every night just so they don't miss a second of Precious Pookie's childhood! OK, that's a bit over the top, but it's late and I'm irritated. I will be more rational tomorrow.

Oh, Leafless, you make it too easy. Hampering the efforts of Stephen Harper? Perish the thought!

The money is going to create spaces, which you might see as administration. Of the current year's installment, in Manitoba 1650 spaces have been created in Winnipeg; 699 spaces have been created in Brandon and rural Manitoba; 68 spaces have been created in the North; 750 spaces have yet to be allocated. Many of those spaces are being created using surplus space in schools, although some of the money does go into renovations and upkeep of buildings. Creating a space means providing an operating grant to cover some of the costs. Parents still pay daily rates of $18.80, but the province adds some money to help cover the costs of rent, salaries, toys and equipment, food, etc. Even if several families were to pool their $1200/year, they wouldn't get this for their money.

First of all, most of your data is either incorrect or misinterpreted. 70% of women with preschool children are in the workforce (according to Kids First, Parents Association of Canada, a group decidedly against day care) and for most of them child care is a patchwork arrangement of who can babysit today. Harper's plan calls for more of the same. What good does it do anyone to have $1200 if there is no place to take them? Child care is not the institutionalized place so many of you seem to think it is. When was the last time you were in a child care program? My work takes me in and out of centres regularly, and while I will not say they are perfect, they are full of caring people who invest themselves daily in these kids. Child care is also not limited to centre based care - family based day care homes also are included in the funding of the Liberals. I have to laugh every time I read this 9 to 5 garbage the conservatives constantly accuse the national program of supporting. In Manitoba, the only limits placed on the care provided are that the people providing it must be regulated - other than that, they can be centre or family based, standard hours or extended, evening, weekend, overnight - whatever the family needs can be accomodated in the funding structure. Anyone can provide the care as long as they are willing to submit to a child abuse registry check, a criminal records check, obtain some basic first aid, and pass a home inspection. Is that too much to ask, when it is public money going into their hands? I understand the argument that home is the best place for kids, and I won't disagree. I was at home when my two youngest were little, and I loved it. I also believe that it was very good for them, and for my two older children to have me there when they returned from school. But that isn't always possible for families to do, and it certainly caused a lot of financial strain in my home. It also meant that my career was put on hold for many years, although I found ways to keep my fingers in the pie from home. Sure, $1200/year would have helped, and maybe we do need to find more ways to support stay at home moms. This isn't it. This program is for families who do need child care. Lets not turn this into an argument over who is the better parent, or what is the right way to raise your kids. Some families need child care. The Liberal plan provides support to them.

Hmm, maybe I could squeeze in to it for a few minutes. It might be tight and uncomfortable, but the benefit of meeting your husband at the door in it is that you won't have it on too long!

Sorry, RB, I have to disagree with you on this. I loved being a stay at home mom, and would happily go back to it (but I don't think the French Maid's outfit still fits). I'm lucky enough to have a job that gives me summers off, so I get to go back to it for part of the year, anyway. I didn't really have a problem getting a job when I decided to go back to work, either, although I'll qualify that by saying I had worked many contracts around my children's schedules while I was at home. I also know many women who say they would love to stay at home, but can't afford it. For many women, working part time would be the ideal. BTW, the term is "Domestic Engineer", not housewife! <Edited to add> Women who are educated can still choose to stay at home, and have this be an intelligent choice. I think the most important word there is "choose". If women want to fight the real fight of feminism, we should be working to erase the artificial standards of the "good mother stays home", the "working mother doesn't really love her children", the "stay at home mom watches Oprah and eats bon bons all day", the "housewife is a second class partner in her marriage". Each of these stereotypes are barriers that women face when trying to make the choice that is best for themselves and their families.

I don't know, it seems there are a few deranged people wandering around this board... Are you really advocating locking up everyone who has HIV?

Sparhawk - sorry it has taken me so long to respond - my first grandchild finally arrived! You make good points, and I don't dispute that the laws sometimes are unfair to fathers. My view is that the father's committment is to his child, not to his ex, so the scenarios you cited are obviously unfair - if he is supporting his child, that should be enough. As for the children who are not biologically his, again I think it depends on the case. If he has taken on the role of father in the child's life, if the child has grown up thinking he is his/her dad, it isn't fair to the child for him to just walk away. The child has no say in the matter, and has no concept of why the person they have come to trust and depend on is now rejecting them. Relationships aren't as disposable when children are in the mix, and any man entering into a relationship with a woman who has a child needs to do so with his eyes open. The same goes for the mother - sometimes single moms are too quick to allow that relationship between their child and their current boyfriend to develop. It is damaging to a kid to have a revolving door of dads.

It isn't a matter of "help" from the ex. Ending a marriage doesn't end a man's obligation to his children. Saying a man "helps" with the expenses of raising children implies that he shouldn't really be expected to, but chooses to out of the goodness of his heart. Those are his kids, no matter what his relationship is with their mother, and he is responsible for their welfare just as much as she is. If the child is not genetically his, but he has taken on the father's role in the child's life, I can see a case being made for support, but it would be on a case by case basis. I knew a boy who had considered his mother's husband to be his father for 10 years, from the time he was 4 til they divorced when he was 14. His "dad" drove him to hockey practice, went to the school conferences, etc. Should that relationship be recognized in the divorce proceedings, allowing "dad" access, but also giving mom child support?

OK, Yodeler, I voted for David Suzuki.

From boot camps to this... I'm not sure if this was a federal initiative or just here in Manitoba, but there is a proposal to have professional tattoos available in prison for a cost of $5.00. This is to prevent prisoners from getting unsafe, homemade tattoos while they are doing time. It seems to me that they are making a choice if they get an unsafe tattoo - the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook for it.

Your're right, tml12, I doubt Gary Doer and the NDP are worried about losing an election any time soon.

Here's the latest from Pat Robertson about the fate of those who oppose teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_...rtson_evolution Do you think Robertson does his cause more harm than good?

In an effort to remind everyone that Canada isn't just Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec... The Conservative leader in Manitoba, Stuart Murray, has called a leadership convention, after receiving only 55% of his party's support at their AGM. He will announce on Monday if he is going to seek the leadership again, or if he's simply stepping aside. Brian Pallister is expected to run (you'll remember him from the national leadership convention), but no one else is really stepping up just yet.

Black Dog, that was the funniest thing I've ever read on this board! (Sorry, Canuck E Stan!)

Interesting thread. I've always thought a pre-nup was a cop-out, like saying, "I promise to love, honour and cherish you til death do us part, but if it doesn't work out, you can't have any of my stuff." Crazymf, I'm not familiar with rural Alberta, but I get your point. And if it works for both partners, and everyone is happy, all is well and good. I respect the traditional family structure, but it doesn't work for everyone, and I don't think you can turn back the clock to the days of Ozzie and Harriet. This is pretty dark, and over simplified. Most women don't work for the luxuries, they work for the neccessities. And if my husband (19 years) thought that not having supper on the table when he got home was a good reason to go to the bar, he'd have another think coming. He's just as capable of cooking as I am. And kids learn the values their parents live, whether they are working or not. Another perspective on marriage longevity... I know that, if I were single, I could support my children and myself - our lifestyle would definitely change, but it would be possible. I like the fact that I am not dependent, but freely choose to stay married. In my mind, that is a clear committment.

I don't see my gender as being relevent here, nor am I advocating legalizing pedophilia. My beef with your post was that you are making some wildly speculative statements based on twisted reasoning, purely to be inflammatory. Now back to my original strategy - Don't Feed The Troll.

Mockingbird, you are making some pretty offensive allegations with nothing but speculation to base them on. Back off.

I was driving from BC to Manitoba, returning from a funeral, listening to results on the radio. Reception was choppy, especially through Saskatchewan, and I was frustrated that I wasn't in front of a TV. I was very much against seperation. I felt it would be unfair to the people of the Maritimes and the North, who would be cut off from the rest of the country, and I also felt that Quebec wanted to have its cake and eat it too, by retaining Canadian currency and federal services (I don't know how accurate that was, but it was certainly what was being said at the time). I have come to a clearer understanding of what "distinct society" means, and sometimes feel that the seperatists have some valid points. But I also believe that Canada has room to accommodate distinction, and we can live together better than live apart. The BQ seems to have a great deal of support, so maybe as long as their is a political voice for the concerns of Quebec the seperatists will be content. I don't know. Yes, but in a different way. When you look at the global community, Canada is a pretty good place to live, and the arguments for seperation seem like they should be able to be resolved without splintering the country.