Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,838 
Location: Independent Palestine
Location: Independent Palestine
April 19th, 2006, 11:00 PM
OTTAWA (CP) - The man who led a national campaign against same-sex marriage is now heading a major offensive against critics of the Conservative child-care plan.
Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College, is rallying social conservatives to counter what he calls "Liberal-friendly advocacy groups." "They have a very slick, well funded, well-oiled lobby," he said in an interview. "But it's a Liberal lobby funded by the former Liberal government."
The most high-profile child-care advocates vehemently deny using Liberal or federal funds for lobbying work. They say they rely on volunteers, member donations and the Internet to get their message out.
Still, McVety is adamant that "the parade of voices" from such groups must be answered in kind.
"We're going to mobilize mothers and fathers to be vocal, exercise their franchise as a voter in democracy, call their MP and get involved as much as they can."
McVety, who also heads the Canada Family Action Coalition, says several other family-values groups will add to the effort. They include the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Institute for Canadian Values and REAL Women of Canada.
It's the latest volley in an escalating battle between those who support Conservative efforts to directly fund parents, and those who prefer the Liberal plan to improve child-care services across Canada.
The Tories are axing the $5-billion Liberal plan in favour of giving families $1,200 a year to spend as they wish for each child under six.
"We're going to come out very shortly with a detailed report showing the funding of organizations like the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care," McVety said.
"Sounds like a nice advocacy group. But when you look into it, where does their money come from? It comes from the former Liberal government," or from unions, he said.
"We're going to call on the government to stop funding these Liberal-friendly advocacy groups."
But Kira Heineck, executive director of the coalition, says federal funding to her group is "minimal."
"We are not funded by any political parties. We have funding from a variety of sources."
Most coalition cash comes from more than 500 members - most of them the staff of non-profit child-care centres and the parents who use them, Heineck said.
"We are a non-partisan advocacy organization that represents our members' concerns.
"It doesn't serve the interests of children to point the finger and try to marginalize us as a Liberal lobby group. It's not fair and it's not just."
"I want to talk about what's best for kids."
Funding from the federal departments for Social Development and Status of Women is being used for specific projects but not advocacy work, Heineck stressed.
Debra Mayer of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada also denied using federal funds for anything but specific research projects.
"You really have to be showing where every penny goes," she said. "The lobbying we engage in is funded by our members. And our books are open - we're a non-profit organization.
"We're parents, we're grassroots people. It's really through peoples' volunteer time that we're able to get the work done."
Groups like hers have loudly called on the Conservatives to honour and expand the Liberal plan.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has also promised to create 125,000 new child-care spaces but has conceded that $250 million in related tax incentives "is not perfect."
Indeed, critics have pointed out that similar efforts in Ontario and New Brunswick inspired little response. Child care services are prohibitively expensive and fraught with red tape.
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News...c=n041953A.xml
This is exactly like American B.S, I would like to see how much money these right-wing nutjobs get from Harper or U.S sponsors.
OTTAWA (CP) - The man who led a national campaign against same-sex marriage is now heading a major offensive against critics of the Conservative child-care plan.
Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College, is rallying social conservatives to counter what he calls "Liberal-friendly advocacy groups." "They have a very slick, well funded, well-oiled lobby," he said in an interview. "But it's a Liberal lobby funded by the former Liberal government."
The most high-profile child-care advocates vehemently deny using Liberal or federal funds for lobbying work. They say they rely on volunteers, member donations and the Internet to get their message out.
Still, McVety is adamant that "the parade of voices" from such groups must be answered in kind.
"We're going to mobilize mothers and fathers to be vocal, exercise their franchise as a voter in democracy, call their MP and get involved as much as they can."
McVety, who also heads the Canada Family Action Coalition, says several other family-values groups will add to the effort. They include the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Institute for Canadian Values and REAL Women of Canada.
It's the latest volley in an escalating battle between those who support Conservative efforts to directly fund parents, and those who prefer the Liberal plan to improve child-care services across Canada.
The Tories are axing the $5-billion Liberal plan in favour of giving families $1,200 a year to spend as they wish for each child under six.
"We're going to come out very shortly with a detailed report showing the funding of organizations like the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care," McVety said.
"Sounds like a nice advocacy group. But when you look into it, where does their money come from? It comes from the former Liberal government," or from unions, he said.
"We're going to call on the government to stop funding these Liberal-friendly advocacy groups."
But Kira Heineck, executive director of the coalition, says federal funding to her group is "minimal."
"We are not funded by any political parties. We have funding from a variety of sources."
Most coalition cash comes from more than 500 members - most of them the staff of non-profit child-care centres and the parents who use them, Heineck said.
"We are a non-partisan advocacy organization that represents our members' concerns.
"It doesn't serve the interests of children to point the finger and try to marginalize us as a Liberal lobby group. It's not fair and it's not just."
"I want to talk about what's best for kids."
Funding from the federal departments for Social Development and Status of Women is being used for specific projects but not advocacy work, Heineck stressed.
Debra Mayer of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada also denied using federal funds for anything but specific research projects.
"You really have to be showing where every penny goes," she said. "The lobbying we engage in is funded by our members. And our books are open - we're a non-profit organization.
"We're parents, we're grassroots people. It's really through peoples' volunteer time that we're able to get the work done."
Groups like hers have loudly called on the Conservatives to honour and expand the Liberal plan.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has also promised to create 125,000 new child-care spaces but has conceded that $250 million in related tax incentives "is not perfect."
Indeed, critics have pointed out that similar efforts in Ontario and New Brunswick inspired little response. Child care services are prohibitively expensive and fraught with red tape.
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News...c=n041953A.xml
This is exactly like American B.S, I would like to see how much money these right-wing nutjobs get from Harper or U.S sponsors.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,900 
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
April 20th, 2006, 01:39 AM
So, is everybody that disagrees with Jersay a nut-job, or is there some other prerequisite?
I just wondered, I thought instead of just "B.A., B.Ed." after my name I might be able to put "B.A., B.Ed., N.J."
The more letters the better, you know.
So, is everybody that disagrees with Jersay a nut-job, or is there some other prerequisite?
I just wondered, I thought instead of just "B.A., B.Ed." after my name I might be able to put "B.A., B.Ed., N.J."
The more letters the better, you know.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 4,465
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
April 20th, 2006, 01:47 AM
Like the G.G.!
She gets:
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
But a former G.G., they get:
P.C., C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
I mean, like ... oh my God!
Like the G.G.!
She gets:
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
But a former G.G., they get:
P.C., C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
I mean, like ... oh my God!
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 4,465
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
April 20th, 2006, 01:54 AM
Is it sad that I know what those post-nominals mean, too?
I think it's because I've written them down so many times! Just like I know how Martin's the M.P. for LaSalle—Émard, and Brison's the M.P. for Kings—Hants, and Stronach's the M.P. for Newmarket—Aurora, and Fry's the M.P. for Vancouver Centre, and Graham's the M.P. for Toronto Centre, and Layton's the M.P. for Toronto—Danforth, and Duceppe's the M.P. for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, and Wasylicia-Leis' the M.P. for Winnipeg North...
*breathes*
Wow...
And to make that über-shiny emdash ("—"), just type Alt + 0151! And for that fancy "ü" thing I just used, use Alt + 0252 (or try Alt + 0220 for a CAPS version! oh my God!).
Is it sad that I know what those post-nominals mean, too?
I think it's because I've written them down so many times! Just like I know how Martin's the M.P. for LaSalle—Émard, and Brison's the M.P. for Kings—Hants, and Stronach's the M.P. for Newmarket—Aurora, and Fry's the M.P. for Vancouver Centre, and Graham's the M.P. for Toronto Centre, and Layton's the M.P. for Toronto—Danforth, and Duceppe's the M.P. for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, and Wasylicia-Leis' the M.P. for Winnipeg North...
*breathes*
Wow...
And to make that über-shiny emdash ("—"), just type Alt + 0151! And for that fancy "ü" thing I just used, use Alt + 0252 (or try Alt + 0220 for a CAPS version! oh my God!).
Super Genius
Posts: 1,249
April 20th, 2006, 01:31 PM
Where are their convictions now?
Quote:
Hah hah hah.
Layton and Duceppe say they can live with Tories' $1,200 daycare cheques
Kevin Dougherty, CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, April 20, 2006
The leaders of the Bloc Quebecois and the federal New Democrats both said yesterday, at separate Quebec City events, that they can live with Stephen Harper's plan to send $1,200 daycare cheques directly to families for each child under six. But the NDP's Jack Layton and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe also want commitments from Mr. Harper that he will not tax away this money, which would be the case without changes to child tax credits in the Tory budget. In Winnipeg yesterday, Mr. Harper repeated that his party's daycare plan, which would replace a Liberal proposal to fund daycare programs, will be a confidence issue: by voting it down, the opposition parties would trigger a new general election.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...7-37c206136ca2
Kevin Dougherty, CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, April 20, 2006
The leaders of the Bloc Quebecois and the federal New Democrats both said yesterday, at separate Quebec City events, that they can live with Stephen Harper's plan to send $1,200 daycare cheques directly to families for each child under six. But the NDP's Jack Layton and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe also want commitments from Mr. Harper that he will not tax away this money, which would be the case without changes to child tax credits in the Tory budget. In Winnipeg yesterday, Mr. Harper repeated that his party's daycare plan, which would replace a Liberal proposal to fund daycare programs, will be a confidence issue: by voting it down, the opposition parties would trigger a new general election.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...7-37c206136ca2
Where are their convictions now?
Super Genius
Posts: 1,029
April 20th, 2006, 01:54 PM
If anyone is a Nut Job it's you Lefty, keep Meltingdown.
Quoting
You couldn't resist bashing the United States "again" and anyone who is Right Wing.
OTTAWA (CP) - The man who led a national campaign against same-sex marriage is now heading a major offensive against critics of the Conservative child-care plan.
Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College, is rallying social conservatives to counter what he calls "Liberal-friendly advocacy groups." "They have a very slick, well funded, well-oiled lobby," he said in an interview. "But it's a Liberal lobby funded by the former Liberal government."
The most high-profile child-care advocates vehemently deny using Liberal or federal funds for lobbying work. They say they rely on volunteers, member donations and the Internet to get their message out.
Still, McVety is adamant that "the parade of voices" from such groups must be answered in kind.
"We're going to mobilize mothers and fathers to be vocal, exercise their franchise as a voter in democracy, call their MP and get involved as much as they can."
McVety, who also heads the Canada Family Action Coalition, says several other family-values groups will add to the effort. They include the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Institute for Canadian Values and REAL Women of Canada.
It's the latest volley in an escalating battle between those who support Conservative efforts to directly fund parents, and those who prefer the Liberal plan to improve child-care services across Canada.
The Tories are axing the $5-billion Liberal plan in favour of giving families $1,200 a year to spend as they wish for each child under six.
"We're going to come out very shortly with a detailed report showing the funding of organizations like the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care," McVety said.
"Sounds like a nice advocacy group. But when you look into it, where does their money come from? It comes from the former Liberal government," or from unions, he said.
"We're going to call on the government to stop funding these Liberal-friendly advocacy groups."
But Kira Heineck, executive director of the coalition, says federal funding to her group is "minimal."
"We are not funded by any political parties. We have funding from a variety of sources."
Most coalition cash comes from more than 500 members - most of them the staff of non-profit child-care centres and the parents who use them, Heineck said.
"We are a non-partisan advocacy organization that represents our members' concerns.
"It doesn't serve the interests of children to point the finger and try to marginalize us as a Liberal lobby group. It's not fair and it's not just."
"I want to talk about what's best for kids."
Funding from the federal departments for Social Development and Status of Women is being used for specific projects but not advocacy work, Heineck stressed.
Debra Mayer of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada also denied using federal funds for anything but specific research projects.
"You really have to be showing where every penny goes," she said. "The lobbying we engage in is funded by our members. And our books are open - we're a non-profit organization.
"We're parents, we're grassroots people. It's really through peoples' volunteer time that we're able to get the work done."
Groups like hers have loudly called on the Conservatives to honour and expand the Liberal plan.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has also promised to create 125,000 new child-care spaces but has conceded that $250 million in related tax incentives "is not perfect."
Indeed, critics have pointed out that similar efforts in Ontario and New Brunswick inspired little response. Child care services are prohibitively expensive and fraught with red tape.
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News...c=n041953A.xml
This is exactly like American B.S, I would like to see how much money these right-wing nutjobs get from Harper or U.S sponsors.
Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College, is rallying social conservatives to counter what he calls "Liberal-friendly advocacy groups." "They have a very slick, well funded, well-oiled lobby," he said in an interview. "But it's a Liberal lobby funded by the former Liberal government."
The most high-profile child-care advocates vehemently deny using Liberal or federal funds for lobbying work. They say they rely on volunteers, member donations and the Internet to get their message out.
Still, McVety is adamant that "the parade of voices" from such groups must be answered in kind.
"We're going to mobilize mothers and fathers to be vocal, exercise their franchise as a voter in democracy, call their MP and get involved as much as they can."
McVety, who also heads the Canada Family Action Coalition, says several other family-values groups will add to the effort. They include the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Institute for Canadian Values and REAL Women of Canada.
It's the latest volley in an escalating battle between those who support Conservative efforts to directly fund parents, and those who prefer the Liberal plan to improve child-care services across Canada.
The Tories are axing the $5-billion Liberal plan in favour of giving families $1,200 a year to spend as they wish for each child under six.
"We're going to come out very shortly with a detailed report showing the funding of organizations like the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care," McVety said.
"Sounds like a nice advocacy group. But when you look into it, where does their money come from? It comes from the former Liberal government," or from unions, he said.
"We're going to call on the government to stop funding these Liberal-friendly advocacy groups."
But Kira Heineck, executive director of the coalition, says federal funding to her group is "minimal."
"We are not funded by any political parties. We have funding from a variety of sources."
Most coalition cash comes from more than 500 members - most of them the staff of non-profit child-care centres and the parents who use them, Heineck said.
"We are a non-partisan advocacy organization that represents our members' concerns.
"It doesn't serve the interests of children to point the finger and try to marginalize us as a Liberal lobby group. It's not fair and it's not just."
"I want to talk about what's best for kids."
Funding from the federal departments for Social Development and Status of Women is being used for specific projects but not advocacy work, Heineck stressed.
Debra Mayer of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada also denied using federal funds for anything but specific research projects.
"You really have to be showing where every penny goes," she said. "The lobbying we engage in is funded by our members. And our books are open - we're a non-profit organization.
"We're parents, we're grassroots people. It's really through peoples' volunteer time that we're able to get the work done."
Groups like hers have loudly called on the Conservatives to honour and expand the Liberal plan.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has also promised to create 125,000 new child-care spaces but has conceded that $250 million in related tax incentives "is not perfect."
Indeed, critics have pointed out that similar efforts in Ontario and New Brunswick inspired little response. Child care services are prohibitively expensive and fraught with red tape.
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News...c=n041953A.xml
This is exactly like American B.S, I would like to see how much money these right-wing nutjobs get from Harper or U.S sponsors.
If anyone is a Nut Job it's you Lefty, keep Meltingdown.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 4,465
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
April 20th, 2006, 02:11 PM
Johnny Utah, with respect, I would suggest that two nations in such close proximity are likely, if not guaranteed, to draw comparisons between one another, such as Canada and the United States of America. However, I would agree with you if your premise is that there shouldn't be baseless insults between the two (but I would suggest that comparisons are entirely appropriate).
In terms of this child care plan, I'm not going to "bash" the right-wing persons who support the initiative of the present Government of Canada, but I would suggest that peraps the Government should look to compromise on this issue, in light of the fact that a majority of Members of Parliament (and I would contend the electorate) are opposed to this endeavour.
Johnny Utah, with respect, I would suggest that two nations in such close proximity are likely, if not guaranteed, to draw comparisons between one another, such as Canada and the United States of America. However, I would agree with you if your premise is that there shouldn't be baseless insults between the two (but I would suggest that comparisons are entirely appropriate).
In terms of this child care plan, I'm not going to "bash" the right-wing persons who support the initiative of the present Government of Canada, but I would suggest that peraps the Government should look to compromise on this issue, in light of the fact that a majority of Members of Parliament (and I would contend the electorate) are opposed to this endeavour.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 531
Location: in the belly of the mouse
Location: in the belly of the mouse
April 20th, 2006, 02:12 PM
"Suffer the little children to keep their parents unemployed and unable to afford education so the rich can get tax breaks."
Yeah, that's what Jesus really said.
Quote:
Child care services are prohibitively expensive and fraught with red tape.
Quote:
"Christian", my ass.
Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College, is rallying social conservatives to counter what he calls "Liberal-friendly advocacy groups.
"Suffer the little children to keep their parents unemployed and unable to afford education so the rich can get tax breaks."
Yeah, that's what Jesus really said.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,249
April 20th, 2006, 05:39 PM
Some ladies may wish to cash in on this $1200 a year but as yet do not have the goods. You know, the kids in question.
Now I am willing to help out in that department. No need to pass up easy money for want of a trip or two into outer space.
Lefty ladies must agree not the brainwash the toddlers in Lenin and Marx. Failure to do so will forfeit the 46 follow up visits and all free golf lessons.
Some ladies may wish to cash in on this $1200 a year but as yet do not have the goods. You know, the kids in question.
Now I am willing to help out in that department. No need to pass up easy money for want of a trip or two into outer space.
Lefty ladies must agree not the brainwash the toddlers in Lenin and Marx. Failure to do so will forfeit the 46 follow up visits and all free golf lessons.
