scuttlebut

THE EDMONTON SUN - December 18, 2005
HARPER RALLY RUCKUS WINTER CAMPAIGN

MURDERED TEEN'S MOM TRIES TO PUSH

PETITION MESSAGE
By ELIZA BARLOW

The defiant mother of a murdered pregnant teen held her ground yesterday as
Conservative handlers tried their best to muzzle her at a Stephen Harper
campaign rally. "I might as well be standing here waiting for Hitler to come
in," said an aghast Mary Talbot, as Tory supporters tried to hide a photo of
her slain daughter from view with Conservative placards as she clutched the
photo over her head. "I cannot believe the Conservatives are behaving like
this. It's humiliating, excruciatingly upsetting."

Talbot went to the rally at the Alberta Aviation Museum with the intention
of asking Harper to support bringing in a law that would allow police to lay
murder charges in the slaying of an unborn child. Talbot's daughter Olivia
Marie Talbot, 19, was 27 weeks pregnant when she was shot dead in her Mill
Woods home on Nov. 24. It's the family's belief that the man who killed
Olivia should be charged with two counts of murder.

Shortly after the Talbot family started to collect signatures for their
petition in support of the law, a woman wearing a Conservative campaign
jersey told them candidates and their families weren't allowed to sign the
petition. Then Edmonton Centre candidate Laurie Hawn's campaign manager
Vitor Marciano told them to put their petition away because the rally wasn't
the appropriate venue to gather signatures. He said it was a time to
celebrate Harper's performance at Friday night's leaders' debate and to show
support for the Tory campaign. Mary Talbot refused to put the petition away.
"I'm going to show my support, too, if he's going to show me his," she told
Marciano. "Where else am I supposed to meet these people?"

Security guards crowded around the family as staffers prepared for Harper's
arrival at the rally. As Mary Talbot tried to hold up Olivia's picture for
news cameras, security guards stood holding campaign placards in front of
her. Talbot tried to move but was closely followed by Conservative
supporters, with one woman waving a homemade sign in front of Talbot each
time she waved the photo.

But when Harper's personal staff arrived, Talbot and Tammy Brownlee, the
sister of the unborn baby's father, Lane Griffiths, were whisked away for a
meeting with Harper. According to Talbot, Harper told her he'd just heard of
the issue a couple of days ago and doesn't have a position on it yet.

David Taras, a political science professor at the University of Calgary,
said the Conservatives are likely skirting the issue because they've become
a "middle-class Ontario party." "What they're trying to do is downplay the
kind of old Reform party-Alliance party politics of social conservatism," he
said. "They don't want to get into fetus politics." Taras added that
"roughing up victims of crime doesn't make for great politics."

Meanwhile, Harper delivered a 20-minute speech outlining Conservative
policies, including a cut in GST, "ironclad protection" for whistle-blowers,
an elected Senate and fixed election dates.

---

Edmonton Journal - December 18, 2005
Mother of slain daughter gets audience with Harper
Wants a law to charge killers of unborn children
By Archie McLean

EDMONTON - A woman whose pregnant daughter was shot and killed last month
got a private audience with Stephen Harper to plead for a law that would
allow police to lay murder charges in the killing of an unborn child. But
Mary Talbot only got her meeting with Harper after she caused a minor scene
at the Conservative leader's first campaign stop in Alberta.

In late November, Mary Talbot's 19-year-old daughter, Olivia, was allegedly
shot several times by a friend in her Daly Grove townhouse. She was six
months pregnant at the time. Since the killing, Talbot and her family have
been lobbying for changes to the Criminal Code that would allow police to
charge her daughter's killer with two murders. Talbot helped start a
petition, which the family says has already generated more than 1,000
signatures. The family has vowed to make the law a campaign issue.

On Saturday afternoon, Talbot arrived at a rally for Harper at the Alberta
Aviation Museum ready to confront him about the law. She didn't tell rally
organizers she was coming and when she was told she couldn't see Harper, she
became livid and began yelling at organizers. "I'm appalled!" she told the
assembled media scrum. "It's totally absurd that the Conservative party is
behaving like this." Talbot then made her way to an area of the hangar where
Harper would be passing and held the petition high over her head. Fearing a
politically damaging scene, rally organizers tried to block the grieving
mother from view by holding Stephen Harper and Rob Merrifield signs in front
of her. Eventually, Talbot darted away from the blockade, continuing to hold
her petition and talking to the now-growing media circle.

Conservative Senator Marjorie LeBreton was dispatched to calm the situation.
LeBreton, whose daughter and grandson were killed by a drunk driver 10 years
ago, talked to Talbot and arranged the short meeting with Harper. "He told
her that he was aware of the case and expressed his deepest sympathies,"
LeBreton said afterwards. LeBreton said Harper wasn't asked to sign the
petition.

Laws like the one Talbot is proposing gained international attention in the
case of Scott Peterson, a California man who was charged with two counts of
murder in the death of his pregnant wife. Olivia Talbot was the second
pregnant woman killed in Edmonton this year. Liana White was four months
pregnant when she was found dead in a ditch northwest of the city. Her
husband Michael has been charged with second-degree murder in the case.
Before the election, Saskatchewan Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott said he
planned to table a private members bill on the issue.

Wilkins saves Liberal bacon: Meddling remarks of U.S. ambassador upstage uproar over popcorn and beer
The Edmonton Journal
Fri 16 Dec 2005
Page: A16
Section: Opinion
Byline: Lorne Gunter
Column: Lorne Gunter
Source: Freelance

Of all the people I might have predicted would throw the Liberals a lifeline in this election, one of the last was the U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins.

Yet there was Wilkins this week, not once but twice taking voters' minds off the Liberals' infamous "popcorn and beer" slur against Canadian parents.

I don't care what the polls have been saying about this campaign until now. Pollsters admit less than one-quarter of the people they phone will participate in their surveys, and liberal-leaning respondents are more likely to answer than conservative-leaning ones.

Regardless of their poll standings, so far the Liberals have been struggling.

It's still very early. At the time of writing this, even the French-language leaders' debate had yet to be held. The Christmas-New Year's hiatus will impose a memory-erasing break. And voting is still more than a month away.

Yet the Liberals have been doing badly. They have been on the defensive policy-wise, spending more time responding to Conservative initiatives, such as the GST cut and the $1,200 annual child-care payment, than pushing their own platform.

Far from being hidden this time, the Conservatives' agenda has largely buried the Liberals'.

Add to that, Scott Reid's sneering, we-know-better-than-you attack on the Tory child-care idea. On a CBC talking-heads panel last Sunday, Reid snapped that his party wouldn't "give people $25 a day to blow on beer and popcorn." (The actual figure is $25 a week.)

The quip summed up brilliantly the Liberals' condescending, patronizing view of ordinary people: They are too dumb to be trusted to raise their kids properly, too dense to choose adequate child care over snacks and booze for themselves.

Liberals believe the state is better able to bring up your kids than you are. They believe day-care workers with a dozen or more of someone else's kids to look after are preferable to a mother or father with one or two his or her own.

Last week a senior Liberal strategist of long acquaintance admitted to me his party, while "not exactly in free fall," was "sinking fast."

The beer-and-popcorn insult could only have accelerated that downward momentum.

Then Wilkins came to the rescue.

I know Prime Minister Paul Martin started the Ottawa-Washington tiff with his remarks at last week's environmental love-in in Montreal, when he accused the White House of recalcitrance on global warming and even implied the Bush administration was immorally abdicating its international responsibilities by not signing on to multilateral treaties on emissions reduction (treaties that no one, not even big-mouth Canada and Europe, are honouring).

But it does no good to point out that Martin took the first swing or suggest Martin was deliberately picking a fight with the Americans in hopes of improving his fortunes in this election.

What's important is that Ambassador Wilkins rose to the bait and in the process may very well have saved the Liberals from losing the pre-Christmas phase of the campaign altogether.

In central Canada and on B.C.'s Lower Mainland, picking a fight with Washington plays the same role picking a fight with Ottawa plays in Alberta politics: It trumps all internal squabbles and rallies voters to the fight-picker's side.

That's why I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Martinites planned this skirmish.

My Liberal-strategist buddy admitted last week his party was losing ground everywhere but in the Greater Toronto area (GTA). In Montreal, Ottawa, Southwestern Ontario and Vancouver -- all areas the Liberals must hold if they are to be re-elected -- their support had softened since the start of the campaign.

Only in the GTA were their high-spending promises and proposal to ban all handguns finding support. Everywhere else, he feared, these initiatives were seen as crass efforts by a enervated and desperate political machine to hold on to power (which is exactly what they were).

Even limited efforts to paint Conservative leader Stephen Harper as scary -- again -- weren't working. "Canadians will buy that he's dull," according to the insider, "but the claim that he's too scary on issues to be trusted, that he's concealing his real beliefs, not many are buying that anymore."

But America-bashing, especially when the Americans are bashing back? Well, if you're the captain of a sinking Liberal ship, let's just say the lifeboat doesn't get much bigger than that.

The Liberals couldn't have asked for better if they'd scripted Wilkins' remarks themselves. Not only did the American envoy scold the Liberal government for criticizing Washington's Kyoto stand, he suggested the Grits were being churlish for targeting this country's No. 1 trading partner.

Imagine if, during an Alberta provincial election, the prime minister jets into Calgary and starts lecturing the premier on how to be a good partner in Confederation. You get the picture.

Foreign diplomats aren't supposed to insinuate themselves publicly in domestic politics. Doing so at election time is strictly against protocol. But I'll bet the flailing Liberals are rubbing their hands with glee that Wilkins broke those unwritten rules.

The best thing the ambassador could do is pipe down until at least Jan. 24.

____________________
Lorne Gunter
Columnist/Editorial Writer,
National Post
Columnist, Edmonton Journal
Tele: (780) 916-0719
E-mail: lgunter@shaw.ca
Fax: (780) 481-4735
Address: 132 Quesnell Cres NW
Edmonton AB T5R 5P2

On child care, Harper's got it right

National Post

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

On some key issues in the current election campaign -- health care, for instance -- there appears to be disappointingly little separating the two main parties. But on the issue of child care the Conservatives have set themselves apart. Stephen Harper's proposal is a welcome antidote to the Liberals' big-government approach to a national daycare program.

Far from being unsympathetic to the needs of working parents, the Conservatives are in fact proposing to spend more on child care than the Liberals. But rather than the heavy-handed approach taken by Paul Martin's government, which will see $5-billion transferred to the provinces over five years in return for the creation of regulated daycare spots, the Tories would leave child-care decisions up to parents. Under their plan, parents would receive an annual allowance of $1,200 per child under age six (on top of current benefits) that could be spent on whatever form of care best suits their kids' needs best -- be it formal daycare, babysitting or stay-at-home parenting.

Equally laudable is the Conservative plan to increase the number of daycare spots not by building government-run centres, but by offering $250-million in tax credits to companies that build daycare centres to accommodate employees' children. As Conservative child care critic Rona Ambrose has pointed out, "The infrastructure part is so expensive, we have to look at ways to bring other partners in the private and public sector on board."

The Conservative plan is a mild deviation from the child-care alternative they previously proposed, which would have involved a tax credit rather than an allowance. But the basic principle of parental choice is the same. The Tories clearly recognize that every family's circumstances are different, and that parents understand better than government officials what arrangements best suit their young children.

Mr. Harper's party has properly set itself apart from the Liberals on this important issue, as he did last week on the GST. Keep going, Mr. Harper. You're on the right track. And Canadians are better off for having clear choices to make come election day.
© National Post 2005

Judicial activism, Madame Justice Beverly McLachlin
Why bother voting?
by Klaus Rohrich
Tuesday, December 6, 2005

I am a great believer in the democratic process, but a recent news items gave me cause to wonder why anyone should bother voting. I am referring to a speech made recently by Madame Justice Beverly McLachlin, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Speaking to law students at Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand, Ms McLachlin said that judges should feel "emboldened" to trump the written constitution, when protecting fundamental rights that may not be enshrined in a formal document.

The significance of this is that the good judge has served notice on the parliament of Canada that no matter what laws they enact; the ultimate lawmaker in Canada will be the Court. Ms. McLachlin believes that a written constitution, such as our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, can become obsolete with the changing of societal norms. As such, she believes that it is the judiciary’s responsibility to ensure that "norms that are essential to a nation’s history, identity, values and legal system" continue to be upheld, written legislation notwithstanding.

While her speech is by no means the opening salvo of a battle that is taking shape between Canada’s legislative and judicial branches, it clearly states that judges trump parliament in ensuring "individuals rights" and supporting societal evolution. While I am sure that Madam Justice McLachlin, who was recently appointed to her post by Prime Minister Paul Martin, is totally benign in her wish to ensure that the judiciary protect future rights of individuals whose predilections may not be covered by our current version of the Charter of Rights, she does open a can of worms that in my opinion could wreak potential havoc with human rights, all in the name of human rights.

The dangerous part of her desire to protect people’s ability to enjoy freedoms that may not necessarily be enshrined in a current written form is that history has shown that quite often nations and societies undergo massive political changes of far reaching consequences. A judicial precedent that ensures this type of change is legal truly scares the hell out of me.

Having read William Shirer’s excellent book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, I am acutely aware how easily the judiciary can become a tool of repression. Hitler utilized legions of lawyers and judges to complete the Nazi Party’s assumption of total power over the German people. It doesn’t take a stretch of the imagination to visualize how a fluid judiciary not bound to follow written law, can make such a disastrous societal change possible.

Society is best served when everyone is equal under the law and the law is clearly laid out in black and white. While Parliament has been complicit in declaring certain citizens of Canada, such as native aboriginals, to have more rights than others, those voting have nevertheless been chosen by the people. Supreme Court judges are chosen by the prime minister, which given the wrong prime minister, can be a scary thought. This trend, if allowed to continue will further add to the so-called "democratic deficit" and will only serve to erode the rights of the majority in favor of minorities.

While minority rights need to be protected, they are best protected by written laws enacted by the people’s representatives and not judges appointed by one man. To allow judges to interpret laws according to their own predilections and not written laws amounts to a judicial coup d’ etat. And judicial juntas are likely no more benign than military juntas and pose an equal threat to a nation’s freedom.

If this is indeed the way the future is shaping up, then there really is no point in voting.

Klaus Rohrich is columnist with Canada Free Press. He can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/klaus120605.htm

Canadian Election Buzz - Dec. 5

Article Excerpts

London MP Pat O'Brien Praises Harper - London Free Press
Pat O'Brien has given the Liberals another slap, saying arch-rival Stephen Harper could make a good prime minister. O'Brien stressed his support for Harper is based on one issue -- same-sex marriage, the very issue that led him to bolt from the Liberals when they voted in favour of it. Harper said last week a Tory government would allow a free Commons vote on gay marriage -- and ban further gay unions if MPs decided to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage. Predicting a neck-and-neck election race, O'Brien said he hopes same-sex marriage remains a front-of-mind issue for voters across Canada. "There's lots of the media who would like to say this issue's over," he said. "This issue's not over. "I give Stephen Harper great credit for making that clear."
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/2005/12/05/1337811-sun.html

Stronach: Harper harming Canadian unity - from Canoe.ca
Belinda Stronach ... blasted Stephen Harper on Monday as someone willing to put the country at risk for selfish political gain. Harper's determination to bring down the Liberal minority government was "an ill-conceived assault" on federalism in Quebec that would have stifled progressive social spending and been socially divisive, Stronach said. Stronach also warned that Harper's views on gay marriage are socially divisive and would deny gays their "honest rights." "Just a few days ago, he re-opened that divisive rift again as a tactical wedge issue," she said. After the speech, Stronach attacked Harper's child-care policy, saying it would cost the country tens of thousands of quality day-care spaces.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/CanadaVotes/2005/12/05/1339208-cp.html

Fred Henry Won't Keep Quiet Again During This Election - Edmonton Sun
Calgary Roman Catholic Bishop Fred Henry says federal laws banning partisan attacks from the pulpit won't muzzle him during the election if the need to speak out arises. Henry said if any of the parties take aim at the religious community's freedom of expression, he won't stand idle. "If somebody does make some outrageous, stupid comment, I'm liable to be there, Elections Act or no Elections Act, if there's a misinterpretation of the separation of church and state," said the outspoken Henry. He also slammed the section of the Act placing limits on religious leaders' speaking out on political matters. "It needs to be revised - it's used very much to muzzle people like me," said Henry. He then went on to compliment Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's vow earlier this week to hold a free vote that could re-open the same-sex marriage debate if he forms the next government.

Harper Considers Eliminating Tax Penalty on Families With Stay-at-Home Moms - National Post
The Conservatives are considering income-splitting as part of a package to ease the burden on "massively overtaxed" Canadians, party leader Stephen Harper says. The measure would be a boon to single-income families who could reduce taxes by dividing total earnings between spouses. Supporters of the idea say stay-at-home parents would no longer be essentially penalized for caring for young children, and seniors would have the fairer treatment they've sought for years
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=1a98b45e-c732-4b6e-ba38-b1e9bd7dff72&k=27483

Robin’ (Svend) Robinson Steal form the Rich to Give to my Lover – Acclaimed NDP Candidate
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/CanadaVotes/2005/12/05/1337770-cp.html

HARPER'S CUT WOUNDS GRITS
Goods and Services axe means Red Book promise will have Tory-book ending
By Licia Corbella

Calgary Sun
December 4, 2005

At long last, the Liberal Party's broken election promise to scrap the GST is gouging and stumping them.

Almost six years ago to the day, Paul Martin -- then an opposition MP and Liberal Party leadership hopeful, dissed the GST.

"The GST is a stupid, inept and incompetent tax," said Martin, as recorded in Hansard on Nov. 28, 1989.

That quote was dredged up by the Conservative Party and sent out in one of about a dozen e-mails delivered daily to media folk on their mailing list.

On Thursday, Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper announced that, if he becomes prime minister, he will immediately cut the GST from 7% to 6%. The tax will be lowered again to 5% within five years.

Harper's plan is both popular and, well, conservative.

It is a slow and gradual tax cut, but one all Canadians will see and feel, immediately.

What's more, it traps the Liberals on so many levels. It reminds Canadians the Liberals are -- to be blunt -- liars.

Abolishing the GST was one of the Liberal Party's main election platforms in 1993, when they were swept to power with a majority government, even though they won just 41% of the popular vote, but garnered 60% of the 301 seats in the House of Commons, thanks to our undemocratic, first-past-the-post electoral system.

What's most interesting about the whole GST debate is that, even in 1993, prior to gaining power, the Liberals knew they would break their verbal election promises.

Martin called the GST "regressive, unfair," adding it's a tax "I am committed to scrapping."

Jean Chretien flew around the country saying he would "kill it," "scrap it" and "abolish it," and rat-packer Sheila Copps (now a Sun Media columnist) vowed she would quit if the Liberals didn't eliminate the GST.

She ended up quitting only temporarily and winning her Hamilton seat back in a byelection.

Martin has admitted he and Chretien penned most of the Liberal Red Book of (mostly broken) Promises in 1993.

That means, he knew back then, he wouldn't do what he said he would do.

In fact, he didn't even do what he wrote he would do.

Instead, the Liberals did exactly nothing with the GST, except reap the benefits it brought in and balanced the books.

Remember the now-infamous CBC "town hall" meeting in 1996, when Chretien denied to a regular citizen that he had ever promised he would repeal the GST?

He vehemently argued he had only told voters he would replace the GST with another tax or harmonize it with the provinces.

But the CBC quickly aired TV clips showing a pre-election Chretien vowing to "kill," "get rid of" and "abolish" the tax.

Even after he was shown videotape of himself during the campaign, he still tried to deny it.

"Read the Red Book," he said.

It sounded a lot like a snake-oil salesman shrugging his shoulders and telling his disappointed customers they should have read the small print instead of believing what he said.

Both men knew they were misrepresenting their position to the public.

Now, Martin is saying the GST is a fabulous thing -- absolutely vital in running the country, since it rakes in $30 billion a year from Canadians -- the most heavily taxed people in the entire G7, excluding those lucky few, like the PM, who own shipping companies and avoid paying millions of dollars in taxes.

Martin's argument that it's financially foolish to cut the GST rings hollow coming from a man who made $24.5 billion in un-budgeted election promises in the 25 days preceding Tuesday's launch of the election.

My girlfriend, Kit, who recently turned 50, just bought the second new vehicle of her life. She says, Harper's plan, when fully implemented, would have saved her $620.

"That's a lot of money for me," she said, "and I'm better off than many Canadians."

In fact, cutting the GST to 5% will save Canadians $8.5 billion a year.

Looking more desperate by the moment, Martin said the Liberal plan to cut income taxes is better than cutting the GST.

Harper responded by saying there's much more to come from the Conservatives on tax cuts, so stay tuned.

Remember, Martin and his Finance Minister Ralph Goodale only agreed to lower Canadians' taxes once they knew they were headed to the polls. Just a few months ago, he said there would be no tax cuts.

What Canadians need to remember is, this is a party that constantly breaks its promises. That the GST and the North American Free Trade Agreement are still here is proof of that.

What's more, Paul Martin's doctor is the owner of the biggest private for-profit medical clinics in the country, which is further proof that he doesn't walk his talk.

Ironically, a couple of hours after the Conservative GST announcement was made, Martin visited a Cornwall, Ont., high school.

According to the Canadian Press, a student asked Martin if politicians should be held legally accountable for their campaign promises.

"Politicians should be held to their promises," Martin said.

"If that politician doesn't follow through, then that politician should be held to account in the next election."

******************

Next story: Global scam (That's another marvellous commentary by Licia - an expose of another Liberal scam perpetrated on Canadians: the Kyoto treaty - RJ)

• Have a letter for the editor? E-mail it to webmaster@calgarysun.com

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2005/12/03/1336205.html

December 2, 2005
Master stroke
Harper announces he'd reduce the GST to 5%
By CP

OTTAWA -- Canadians who are fed up with the standard campaign fare of mudslinging and trash-talking have been dished up a tasty election treat -- a virtual guarantee they'll pay less tax next year.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper sweetened the political pot yesterday by pledging to cut the GST to 6% immediately, then to 5% within five years.

It's a multibillion-dollar move of one-upmanship on the Liberals, who used last month's fiscal update to promise tax cuts of $30 billion over six years.

And since the Tories or the Liberals have the only real chance of forming a government on Jan. 23, a lighter tax burden seems inevitable -- provided they keep their promises.

Harper also told supporters in Mississauga, Ont., that more tax-cut pledges are on the way -- setting the stage for taxes to become a major issue in the marathon campaign.

"I believe that all taxes are bad," Harper said. "Better taxes are lower taxes."

Harper boasted that a one-percentage-point cut in the GST would save the average family of four with a $60,000 income about $400 a year, while costing the federal treasury $4.5 billion -- a figure hotly contested by the Grits.

The Tory strategy put Prime Minister Paul Martin in the awkward position of having to defend a tax he once promised to eliminate -- a vow the Liberals never kept.

"I don't believe that is the path to follow," Martin said in response to Harper's plan.

"Canadians have been down this road before. They've heard this story."

The Liberals won power in 1993 partly by promising to get rid of the hated tax brought in by the Tory government of Brian Mulroney. But they backed down after taking office.

Martin said he will focus on the Liberal aim to reduce personal and corporate income taxes.

The wisdom of a GST cut versus an income tax cut was a hot topic yesterday.

Top beancounters say cutting the consumption tax would be less effective than delivering broad-based breaks to income and corporate taxes, which would put more cash in Canadians' pockets and keep the economy healthy.

But Barry Nabatian, general manager of Market Research Corp. said any tax cut is music to Canadians' ears, and predicted that lowering the GST would have a positive psychological effect on consumers.

Anthony Sayers, political scientist at the University of Calgary, said the GST pledge is a smart move because it's an easy commitment to fulfill and much less difficult to measure than income tax cuts.

Another bonus: "It does give (Harper) another chance to emphasize that the Liberals broke their GST promise," he added.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2005/12/02/1333574-sun.html

Winnipeg Sun - December 7, 2005
http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Brodbeck_Tom/2005/12/07/13417
28.html
Insulting to parents
By TOM BRODBECK

Liberal Social Development Minister Ken Dryden says parents who choose
to stay at home and care for their own children are not providing their
kids with child care. That's right. All you mothers, and sometimes
fathers, out there who choose to stay home and raise your children - to
care for them, teach them, enlighten them and love them - are not doing
"child care." "It's not child care," Dryden said yesterday on CTV
NewsNet, responding to the Conservative election pledge this week to
provide child-care allowances to parents with children under six. The
Tory move is designed to allow parents to put the money toward the child
care of their choice, in addition to what governments already fund.

That would include helping pay the bills for stay-at-home parents who
choose to raise their kids at home and who often sacrifice their
household budgets to do so. It would also include money for parents to
help pay for child care at smaller, home-based settings - most of which
get no government aid - but are the choice of many parents who prefer
them over larger, institutional facilities. The child-care allowance
would help pay for people who choose nannies or others to provide care
in their own home. And it would help parents pay for child-care centres
that are not organized as co-operatives. (Child-care centres that are
not set up as co-ops and not run by volunteer boards do not qualify for
government assistance).

According to Dryden, though, those options are "not child care."

Unless you send your kid to a licensed, regulated facility that receives
a government grant, you're not getting child care, says Dryden. As a
parent, I find that insulting and highly offensive. To suggest that the
work stay-at-home parents do is not child care is outrageous. You want
to talk about scary? That scares the hell out of me.

I'm all for government funding for institutional child-care centres. I
think we need them. I use them myself, and many of them are excellent
centres run by talented and dedicated staff. (Some are not, by the way).
But the problem with the Liberal's plan is that it only applies to a
small minority of parents. Most parents don't use institutional child
care. And while it's laudable to fund child-care centres - and I think
government should keep doing it - it's only one of several options out
there.

Take Winnipeg, where Dryden was yesterday announcing more money for
government-sanctioned child care. According to the 2004 report Time for
Action: An Economic and Social Analysis of Childcare in Winnipeg, about
five out of six children in the city do not use licensed, regulated
child care. The report's author, University of Manitoba professor Susan
Prentice, found that out of 100,537 children age 0-12 in Winnipeg, only
16,749 of them were in licensed, regulated child care. It defies logic,
then, that government should target all of its child care funding to
those 17% of children who use institutional care. Why not help all
families who need support with child care costs, including stay-at-home
parents and those who choose other forms of care?

I don't know why Dryden would think a mother or father couldn't provide
their own children with the kind of early-childhood development they
need. It's an insult to the majority of Canadian parents.

Adscam Liberals Don't Trust Canadian Parents With Child-Care Dollars
Another Liberal spokesman unbelievably puts foot in mouth when asked about Reid's "beer and popcorn" remark

By John-Henry Westen

OTTAWA, December 12, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Ironically, the very political party that has been caught red-handed squandering millions of dollars has come out publicly saying Canadian parents cannot be trusted with child-care dollars.

BEER AND POPCORN

Chief Liberal spokesman Scott Reid said Sunday that the Conservative plan to give child-care dollars to parents so that they may have choice in child-care rather than being forced into institutionalized day care as per the Liberal plan was unworkable since parents would waste the money on "beer and popcorn". Said Reid: "(Children) need care that is regulated, safe and secure and that's what we're building here. Don't give people $25 a day to blow on beer and popcorn. Give them child-care spaces that work." (see video clip: http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/audio/ProudToBeCanadian.ca_Liberals_Don't_Trust_Canadians.wmv )

The comments sparked the ire of families across Canada and the interest of the usually Liberal-backing mainstream media.

Reid later made a half-hearted attempt to back out of his gaffe saying "no responsible parent" would squander the money but added nonetheless "The point remains that Mr. Harper offers a tax cut, not a child care plan."

Martin too tried to run for political cover saying, "There's no doubt in my mind that parents are going to use it for the benefit of their families. They're going to use that money in a way that I'm sure is responsible. Let there be no doubt about that.''

NO INSULT INTENDED TO BEER AND POPCORN PRODUCERS

However, another Liberal spokesman significantly worsened the situation for the Liberals when he gave strong endorsement for Reid's comments. Leading off a political question period program a CTV host asked Liberal spokesman John Duffy what he made of Reid's "demeaning" remarks. Duffy responded, "I don't think any insult was intended to the beer or popcorn producers." The CTV host responded, "What about to Canadians John?" Duffy responded, "The fact is Jane there's absolutely nothing to stop somebody from pocketing Stephen Harpers $1200 supposed child-care baby bonus and spending it however the heck they want."

When the Conservative representative asked Duffy point blank if he was standing by the "callous" beer and popcorn remarks, Duffy replied, "Yes of course I am."

Kate Tennier, the leader of a grassroots non-partisan organization seeking to have choice for parents in childcare options, told LifeSiteNews.com that the remarks reveal the mindset of the Liberals. Tennier, of Advocates for Childcare Choice, said "I just think that this shows, in a very public way, what the Liberals feel about the ability of parents to make decision s about their children, it's contemptuous."

VOTE CONSERVATIVE SAY CHOICE IN CHILDCARE ADVOCATES

Asked what her advice would be for Canadian families who support choice in childcare, Tennier responded, "I have never voted Conservative in my life. But I will be voting conservative because of this issue."

Political analysts told LifeSiteNews.com that the revealing gaffe may have serious political ramifications for some Liberal politicians. Losing Liberal candidates may well be awarded with a gift when they find themselves denied a seat in government - a six pack and a bag of Orville Redenbacher's.
Back to Top | Email to a Friend

Even the NDP and Bloc say the Liberals are Anti-Family

By John-Henry Westen

OTTAWA, December 12, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The anti-family remarks of two Liberal Party spokesmen Sunday has garnered criticism from all opposition parties. Chief Liberal spokesman Scott Reid and his colleague John Duffy in televised comments said that Canadian parents would squander child-care money (if it was granted to parents directly rather than to state-run institutions) on "beer and popcorn". (see LifeSiteNews.com coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121202.html )

NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe while maintaining their disagreement over the Conservative child-care plan, nonetheless took issue with the anti-family stance of the Liberals.

Layton, speaking at a Toronto daycare said, "The mask has come off the Liberal approach to childcare." In comments to the Globe and Mail he added, "Certainly, attacking families is not the way to go."

Duceppe told the Ottawa Citizen, "It is profoundly contemptuous, I don't agree with Harper's proposal, but to say such a thing ... it reminds me of Jean Chretien's declarations on unemployment. He said people in the Gaspe, all they want is their cheque to go buy beer. I remember that."

For the Conservatives, spokesman Dimitri Soudas told the Citizen, "This is how out of touch the Liberal party is with Canadian parents. Mr. Reid's comments are unacceptable and insulting. Canadian parents work very hard to raise their children and offer them everything they can."

Globe and Mail

Harper won't use opt-out clause on same-sex
By BRIAN LAGHI and DANIEL LEBLANC AND BILL CURRY

Friday, December 16, 2005

OTTAWA AND VANCOUVER — Conservative Leader Stephen Harper moved last night to inoculate himself from attack on the issue of same-sex marriage, revealing in the first federal election debate that he would not use the constitution's override clause to block the right of gays to get married.

Mr. Harper made the unexpected pledge during the French-language debate in Vancouver, while Liberal Leader Paul Martin and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe had focused on the sponsorship scandal, integrity and national unity.

On a question about gay rights, the Conservative Leader said that, while he would put the issue of gay marriage to the House of Commons for a vote, he would not try to get around any future court decisions by using the constitutional notwithstanding clause.

"No, I will never use the notwithstanding clause on this issue," Mr. Harper said. The pledge appears to take the sting out of Liberal attacks on Mr. Harper, although a surprised Mr. Martin attempted to press on with his charge nonetheless.

"If he is not ready to use the notwithstanding clause, he should say it clearly, and the people who support him will be aware of his position," Mr. Martin said.

Mr. Harper made his pledge after he was asked how he would react if he found out that one of his two children were gay.

"It's the job of a parent to always love our children. I love my children and will love them for all their life," Mr. Harper said.

In the debate, which took place in a Vancouver performing-arts theatre, Mr. Martin tried to win over crucial federalist Quebec votes by raising the spectre of another referendum. Mr. Duceppe kept the spotlight firmly focused on Liberal scandal as party leaders crossed sabres in th e first of four debates leading up to the Jan. 23 election.

The French-language encounter was remarkable for a format that avoided interruption and direct confrontation. Also notable during the debate was a pledge by Mr. Martin to implement all of the recommendations Mr. Justice John Gomery makes in his second report on the sponsorship scandal, which is due in February. Mr. Duceppe, however, said the commission does not have the authority to sanction the Liberals and voters must do it.

"Judge Gomery concluded that the Liberal Party dishonored itself, that laws were violated, that a kickback system was established," Mr. Duceppe said.

"On Jan. 23, it will be up to you to vote and sanction the Liberals for the sponsorship scandal."

While Mr. Martin pledged to put into place Judge Gomery's proposals sight unseen, he also urged Canadians to move beyond the scandal.

At one point, Mr. Martin tried to take advantage of this week's contretemps with U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins, who criticized the Liberals for trying to bring the White House into the election campaign.

In his closing, Mr. Martin, holding up a fist, listed as one of his accomplishments "standing up in the face of the Americans when they taxed us unjustly on softwood lumber." Mr. Martin also played heavily on national unity -- insisting that Mr. Duceppe's goal was another Quebec referendum.

"You want to divide Quebec families, but it's not going to happen," he said.

He added that Mr. Harper wanted to turn the country backward in a way that does not match Quebeckers' views, charging he is against Quebec's daycare system and the Kyoto accord on greenhouse-gas emissions, and for the U.S. missile-defence system and for sending troops to Iraq. (Mr. Harper's Conservatives do not support sending soldiers to Iraq and have only suggested a debate on whether to join the missile defence project.) NDP Leader Jack Layton attempted to h ammer home the message that his party was the reason that some good things were accomplished by the previous Parliament.

"Because we had a minority government, we were able to get some results," he said.

Under the new format, the leaders answered videotaped questions from voters. The debate, however, lacked the fiery exchanges of past encounters, although the four still managed to turn questions into opportunities to criticize each other.

At stake in Quebec are as many as half of the Liberals' 21 seats in the province. Although the race appears to be between the Bloc and the Liberals, Mr. Harper stole some attention with his promise on gay marriage.

But Mr. Harper made a gaffe when he referred to French as Canada's "second" language.

After the debate, Mr. Harper noted that the Supreme Court never explicitly ruled the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional, and although many legal scholars disagree, he argued that if Parliament reinstated it, it would have to be respected.

"Clearly, the Supreme Court has said that Parliament has the right to make the decision, and I think that is a point Mr. Martin keeps jumping over," Mr. Harper said.

Mr. Martin called the Conservative Leader disingenuous. "You cannot challenge a Charter right without using the notwithstanding clause," the Liberal Leader said. "There is no other way."

Leaders gave the new format mixed reviews.

Mr. Duceppe said that he was happy with the way it was managed, but missed the old set-up. "I have said I always like having interaction," he told reporters.

Mr. Layton said he found it enjoyable and respectful, if too short to allow him to attack Mr. Martin.

"I was only able to challenge about 10 broken promises. I had a list of about 100."

You are receiving this email because you have subscribed to a Citizens Centre email list. To change your email subscription, go to www.ccfd.ca and click on "Subscribe".

Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 10:59 AM

Same-sex vote backed
A poll finds 55 per cent of Canadians favour a Commons free vote on the marriage issue.
By KATE DUBINSKI, FREE PRESS REPORTER

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/2005/12/16/1355597-sun.html

The smoldering same-sex marriage issue was decided in a Commons vote in June, but a Leger/Sun Media poll shows the majority of Canadians consider the issue far from dead.

More than half the 2,013 adults surveyed in the poll -- 55 per cent -- said they favour a free vote on the divisive issue, as Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has promised.

The issue is especially critical in Southwestern Ontario, often cited as the province's bible belt, where seven out of 10 MPs voted in June against changing the traditional definition of marriage to include same-sex unions.

Three area Liberals, three Tories and Independent Pat O'Brien voted against the controversial legislation.

Leger Marketing chief executive Jean-Marc Leger said the poll shows voters aren't ready to put the issue to rest.

"This debate has not ended," he said.

Considered a mistake by many pundits, Harper promised in the early days of the Christmas election campaign that a Tory government would re-open the divisive debate and allow all MPs to vote freely on the issue.

Conservative MP Jason Kenney said yesterday the new poll proves his leader is in step with Canadians.

"This reflects how the Conservative Party is more in touch with mainstream Canadian thinking and the Liberals are captive to insider political correctness rather than reflecting mainstream majority opinion," Kenney said.

O'Brien, a longtime Liberal who is not running in this election, quit his party to sit as an independent because of his opposition to the Liberal legislation.

O'Brien is now travelling Canada with an organization called Vote Marriage Canada in a campaign to get the issue put to a free vote in the Commons.

"We support in a non-partisan way candidates that stand for the traditional definition of marriage (and) a vote to revisit it," O'Brien said from Edmonton, where he's meeting with supporters .

The highest courts in most provinces have upheld gay marriage, but Prime Minister Paul Martin allowed what the Liberals considered a free vote on the issue in June.

The final vote was 158 to 133 in favour of the legislation, with 32 Liberal MPs joining the Conservatives against it.

But O'Brien insists the vote was never truly free, as Martin had promised, because his cabinet ministers had to toe the party line and weren't allowed to vote their conscience.

It was "one of the most undemocratic moments in (Canadian) history," said O'Brien, noting MPs deserve another vote no matter what polls say.

"I don't care if it's five or 10 per cent of people who support revisiting this issue. . . . People are very understanding that the vote was unfair and undemocratic and the decision was bad for Canada," he said.

In the Leger/Sun Media poll, respondents were asked, "In your opinion, should Parliament have a free vote on gay marriage or not?"

Support for a free vote was strongest among those intending to vote either for the Bloc Quebecois (66 per cent) or the Conservatives (61 per cent). But even a slight majority of Liberal backers (54 per cent) and almost half those intending to vote NDP (46 per cent) also supported a free vote.

Still, some London-area politicians insist gay marriage is a done deal and not a major concern for voters.

"I've heard about it from one person and that's it," said Paul Steckle, a four-term Liberal from rural Huron-Bruce, who's running again.

"I didn't like the decision, either, but reality is reality, and I support my constituents," said Steckle, who voted no on the issue in June.

But Tory Bev Shipley, running in Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, another sprawling rural seat, said the free vote comes up repeatedly at voters' doors.

"Our position is that we support a free vote and people are upset about what happened with the last vote," he said, adding other issues such as government accountability come up more often.

* * *

A majority of Canadians supports the Liberal plan to cut income tax over the Conservative pledge to shave two points off the GST, but they're split over which offers the best child-care option, the Leger/Sun Media poll suggests.

TAX CUTS: Given a choice between the duelling platforms on tax cuts, 53 per cent of respondents choose Prime Minister Paul Martin's pledge to cut personal income tax and 38 per cent Tory Leader Stephen Harper's promise to cut the goods and services tax to five per cent from seven per cent. The polling shows a distinct split between Conservative and Liberal supporters who tend to side with their respective leaders, said Leger Marketing's chief executive, Jean-Marc Leger.

CHILD CARE: The Leger/Sun Media poll suggests a voter split over the rival Tory and Liberal election vows meant to help families with young children. While 47 per cent say they prefer the Liberal promise to boost funding to an existing day-care program, 41 per cent choose the Tory option that would see young families receive $1,200 a year for each child under age six to spend as they see fit. Support in Ontario for the Liberal option is 51 per cent and for the Tory alternative 35 per cent, the survey indicates.

* * *

BANNING HANDGUNS

- A majority of Canadian voters think Prime Minister Paul Martin is shooting blanks with his plan to fight violent crime by promising a ban on handguns, the Leger/Sun Media poll suggests.

- Almost 60 per cent of the 2,013 adults surveyed nationwide said they do not believe such a ban would have the desired effect.

- Respondents in Alberta and the Prairies are the most critical of the plan, where as many as 77 per cent dismissed it as ineffective. In Ontario, the ratio is 57 per cent.

ABOUT THE POLL

Leger Marketing polled 2,013 voting-age adults nationwide for Sun Media between Dec. 9 and 13, asking about voting preferences in the federal election and other issues. Results of the survey are considered accurate to within 2.2 percentage points (plus or minus), 19 times out of 20.