Melanie_

I think you are simplifying Africa's woes to blame them completely on the Muslim/Christian issue. Much of Africa was colonized by the Europeans, and in particular Great Britain, whose motto was "divide and conquor". Thus, borders were drawn so that traditional tribal groups found themselves in different countries, sharing the land with other tribal groups that didn't share their culture, language, traditions, etc. As long as the Europeans could keep the Africans fighting each other, and convince each that they were the preferred tribal group, they could maintain power. Meanwhile, they brought white collar labour over from India, creating a class of bank clerks, junior accountants, etc., who also had an investment in keeping the Africans out of power. As the Europeans left, and the African people had the opportunity to create their own regimes, they had no depth to their political experience, and have had a succession of power hungry dictators. Tribes want their traditional lands to be returned to the borders that made sense to them, rather than those drawn for the express purpose of causing war (a perfect example of this is the Tutsis and Hutus of Rwanda). I agree that we need to do something about Sudan. We have a moral responsibility to take action to help prevent the genocide of Rwanda from happening again. But lets look at all of the issues here, not just the ones that are most easily seen, and judged, from the surface.

This statement is worth repeating, over and over again. Thanks, Black Dog.

Manitoba doesn't get national attention, so you may not have noticed, but the NDP has been a good thing for this province. Certainly better than the Filmon years; there is still a lot of bitterness when you talk to people about life under the Conservatives. Our economy is good, our social programs are relatively healthy, and people are able to work full time, not forced to take "Filmon Fridays" so the government can save a day's salary here and there.

Don't forget Kilgour, who is using his status as a free independent vote to push for help for Darfur. Opportunistic, perhaps, but here I believe the ends justify the means.

Way to go, Belinda! This was a brilliant move; bringing in someone untainted by Adscam to follow through on the inquiry gives a great deal of credibility to Martin. Also, it shows that the far right Cons are not willing to be flexible or to try to moderate their policies; what will their stand be now on same sex marriage and women's rights with one less moderate to stand against the hard liners? BTW, takeanumber, as a married woman I wonder what chip I have on my shoulder? Otherwise, I agree with everything you've written, but if I have an opportunity to complain that I'm missing, I want to know about it!!

Which government held hoops would you like to do away with? The regulations in most jurisdictions in Canada are already very minimal - pass a criminal records check, get some basic first aid training, have a fire exit and some floor space for the children to play, and you are in business. Perhaps some of the nasty stories quoted on the website you provided a link to would have had a better outcome if there were more regulations in place to provide quality care. Refusing to support increased expectations, then quoting examples of substandard care, is self serving.

Lighten up. There are lots of threads about serious topics here; a bit of fun is OK too. No one is really advocating burning people alive!

I've actually been amazed at the level of cordiality displayed, considering the debate that rages here (although this is the first post I've read today - perhaps I'm speaking too soon). But I will agree with you, Scott, that Canada is the greatest country, despite all our problems and discord.

KalosSkilo, having reread your previous post (about Iraq being the best place to control), I realize I misinterpreted what you meant. My apologies. As to the US' main objective being to keep Al Quaida from controlling the Middle East, it has been stated again and again that Al Quaida was not involved with the government of Iraq. If the objective was to keep them out of power, I would expect the US to support Saddam Hussein, as he was resistant to Al Quaida. The American action in Iraq has created a boom for Al Quaida, and other fundamentalist Islamic groups, rather than depleting them.

The problem with words like "tyranny" and "freedom" is they are too easily misused as emotional hot buttons to manipulate people into supporting a political end. Anyone who doesn't support Bush, for example, is painted as not supporting freedom and democracy - as if his policies are the only hope of freedom and democracy for the world. Semantics are all about the spin - the only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is which side of the war you're on.

If you truly mean it is the best geological location to be in control of, you are advocating war based on going where the oil is. If you mean it is the best geographical location to be in control of, you are advocating invading a country because it will help you control other countries some time in the future. Either way, you are saying that the US invaded Iraq for strategic reasons to their own benefit, not because of WMD's, Saddam Hussein's tyranny, for the good of the people of Iraq, etc. Finally, I can agree with you!

You have been watching too much Fox News.

Hopefully we learned a thing or two from what happened in Rwanda, and will be able to do more for the people of Sudan. My brother in law was in Zaire (I think it was Zaire, don't trip me up on my geography!) as an aid worker in a refugee camp full of those coming from Rwanda, and he won't talk about it except in very general terms. He will say, though, that he never knew people could act that way towards other people. I think we have a responsibility to go to Sudan as peacekeepers; this is Canada's role on the international stage, and it is what most Canadians value. Sudan needs help, and Kilgour is a politician - he is trading his support of the Liberals for their support of his issue. That's politics.

Kimmy, I don't see universal free care as a viable option, either. Let good care be available, and parents will pay for it. If they are unable to pay, a regulated system of subsidy, based on income, should be in place. The money needs to go to creating spaces, training staff, and supporting families who need financial assistance. Private and non profit centres alike would need to meet the standards in order to receive any public money.

It is very brave of you to suggest that anyone in politics is above scandal or corruption; perhaps I am as cynical as you think, although for the most part I am an optimist. At this point, I am still waiting for the inquiry's results, so maybe that shows just how optimistic I really am. It is misleading for you to challenge my belief in honesty and contrast it with my other statements - I did not say I didn't value honesty, just that I didn't see it as being any more (or less) likely from the Conservatives than the Liberals, and that the current scandal is not enough for me to back the Conservatives on the issues they support. Yes, I do think same sex marriage is valid. Despite having visible minorities, I have heard a number of bigoted comments over the years from Reform/Alliance members that still sting. As for women's rights, I have yet to hear a Conservative support a woman's right to choose termination of an unplanned pregnancy. Privatization of health care would favour the rich living in large, mainly southern, urban centres - we have a vast country that requires the money and resources to be spread out to all. That may seem like a short list, but it seems like a good start to me.

I will support the Liberals in the next election. As I stated before, the Liberals do not have a monopoly on political scandals; the Conservatives are just as vulnerable to opportunists within their party as anyone else. And while Harper himself doesn't inspire me with confidence, some of the Reform/Alliance diehards in his party make me worry about minority rights, gay rights, women's rights, the list goes on. There is too much of a discrepency in what I hold to be important and what the traditional Conservatives hold to be important for me to support them, and the chances that the Conservatives would hold power for any length of time without a political scandal or two seem too slim to use that as a justification for compromising other strong values.

One of the common misconceptions about a national child care program is that "universal" means that every child should go. What it really means is that good care is available, regardless of where you live, how much money you make, or the disability of your child. Right now, finding good care is one of the biggest challenges any parent faces, even when they are able to afford it. There is a shortage of people willing to care for children in their homes, and you don't want to just take the first person who says they'll do it. A regulated system means that there are checks and balances in place - child abuse registry, first aid certification, some level of understanding of how to work with several children at the same time. I absolutely agree that people who are at home are making a contribution to our society, and I am sorry I gave the impression I didn't value them. I stayed at home with my own 4 children for several years, but also managed to stay in my career as well, by flexing my hours around my husband's schedule. That is much harder than it sounds, and certainly cost me in terms of advancing in my profession. But, I chose to have 4 children, and that requires a trade off, one which I was happy to make. Now, as they are in school and beyond and I am back full time in the work force, I fully expect to pay for the younger ones' care, and do so willingly when I know that I am getting a service they benefit from and I feel secure with. In my view, the national program's primary objective is getting facilities built; the need for care is high. Equally important, though, is that the people working in those facilities are nurturing and trustworthy; we could never monitor that in an unregulated system where families were settling for whatever care was available. If we are putting public money into the system, accountability must be built in as well.

Pateris, I think it is important that the money only go to regulated child care venues, be they home based or centre based. If no one is regulating the centres, no one is accountable for the money. Your earlier concern about the potential for abuse is only magnified in an unregulated system, and there would be a hue and cry about public money going into a black pit. As for incentive to "raise their own children", parents are doing so, whether they work or not. Having supports does not mean abdicating one's responsibility as a parent, and the reality is that our economy depends on having women in the workforce. For women to do so, they must have the peace of mind of knowing that their children are well cared for during their working hours. Cybercoma, I can see you and I will have differences of opinion on many subjects! Let the games begin!

Wow, I jumped in with both feet, didn't I? My understanding is the 176 million will not all go towards opening new spaces; there will be training initiatives, one time capital costs associated with building new centres, and increases to wages for the people who work in the field. Parents will continue to pay their daily fees as usual; in Manitoba, it is $18.80 per day for a child between the ages of 2 - 6, and $27.40 per day for a child under the age of two. Those rates haven't changed in years, and my understanding is that they are low in comparison to BC and Ontario (perhaps one of you knows more about this). Private centres of course charge much more, and are only used by the highest income earners or those who are desperate for any care they can find. I am not suggesting that the government absorb all the costs of child care, just that they give enough support to make it affordable for parents to use, and still attractive to workers to stay in the field and provide long term stability to the children.

Pateris - Universal child care does not mean that every child is in care; it just means that it is available if families need it. I really don't see tax breaks as a viable alternative to working - if I stay at home, that is one less taxpayer in the economy; if my husband then gets a tax break because I am at home, that is less tax being paid again. If every woman chooses this option, and every husband gets the tax break, who will be paying taxes? Those not taking advantage of this will be up in arms at the increased burden placed on them. And as I stated before, a tax break does not replace my income, so the freedom to choose argument is false. Also, imagine our workforce if every woman with a child under the age of 6 chose not to work. Look around your workplace and imagine how you would replace your coworkers. I agree that there could potentially be issues related to abuse, but we run that risk in public schools, hospitals, nursing homes, etc. Safeguards are in place there, and could easily be adapted to the child care field.

I don't have faith in Harper because I see him pushing an agenda that would take women back 50 years in time. I understand the Conservative value that women are responsible for caring for their children at home, but unfortunately that is not the reality for many women. Tax breaks are not going to allow me to stay at home; replacing my income will, and I don't see that happening. Nor do I want it to. I think I still have something to offer as a working taxpayer despite the fact that I have children. I am not looking for a free ride, I am willing to pay for my child care, but I want it available in a setting that is safe, nurturing, and respectful of my children and my needs as a working mother. Harper's idea that giving the money to families will give them more choice is false - I am not interested in finding patchwork child care that is vulnerable to caregiver's illnesses and their own changing lives. Centre based well funded child care is really the only option, and I don't see Harper as someone who will buy in to this. Luckily, I live in Manitoba, where child care is given good supports already, but I am very much in favour of a national program that will be available to families who need it, when they need it. This is not to say every child should be in care, just that good care is available when it is needed.

OK folks, go easy on me, as this is my first post. I have been lurking for a few days, but am ready to come out of the shadows. I am not ready to go to an election. The Liberals do not have a monopoly on political scandals, and I have no faith in Steven Harper. I think a minority government is an opportunity for all parties to have their say, and we need to get on with the business of governing this country. An election now would likely result in another minority, and we would find ourselves at the polls again this time next year. There are much better ways to spend our time and money than in continual jockeying for first place.