Government provided daycare for children, and adults

Profit defines evil? The Liberals would have you believe this based on their current actions regarding healthcare and now daycare in Canada.

The latest in state-run social services is a national (not for profit) daycare system. There has already been an initial "get off the ground" funding of $5 Billion allocated to this service. Not to mention the billions more that will follow as the healthcare model has shown us. Can we afford a national daycare program with all the other financial responsibilities we have as a taxpayer and a country? The Liberals seem to think so, and they are pulling out all the stops to have the general public be of the same mindset.

Sandwiched between countless CBC reports and a Statistics Canada report was the confirmation of the funding for this program. The CBC (being one of the usual suspects) was true to form on its' report: Daycare in Canada. The 'in-depth' report discusses positions from the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada (http://www.childcareadvocacy.ca) and other bias groups defending the need for the system. The Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada even goes as far to say that the initial contribution is a "modest and minimum" investment, and calls for the funding to immediately be taken to $10 Billion. That being said, they bring in the fear factor. With as much as $10 Billion on the table, won't foreign for-profit companies (the evil U.S. ones in particular) come and swoop down a vengeance of profiting off of the need of the children? The same reports recommends that Ottawa pass legislation prohibiting for-profit services.

The Stats Canada report was another story all together, well almost. The feds wheeled out the Stats Can report like Hannibal Lecter with more fear based spins and stats. The report focused on a key number and a spin-question. The number of kids being looked after outside of the home was 53% with only 25% of those kids being enrolled in daycare. The remaining number of kids were being looked after in relatives homes, a number that had increased by 14% in the last couple of years. The spin-question in the report now being does a child being cared for in an environment that is not publically governed (like our public schools) do the child harm in his or her development?

Wow. It was all quite a show. Perfect timing, perfect wording, perfect spoon-feeding.

Now, often in life to get a better picture of what's really happening in a situation many simply turn on the lights. When the lights are turned on in this situation all that can be seen is the various unions running for cover like cockroaches. The unions have already dug themselves in to represent and govern in the not for profit system and they don't plan any change in that direction. The unions are behind organizations like the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada and are funding every little mouthpiece to maintain their goal. Their goal being a substantial increase in their membership in the form of daycare workers under the national program.

Keep in mind that the for-profit fear mongers would have you believe that if an organization is profiting from a service like childcare their standards will be lower, their work ethic less focused and the costs will only increase. Look at the union position again, with their goal in mind, more members. More members means more dues, more profit for the unions? Did I forget to carry a two somewhere in that equation? No, the unions are looking to stack their pockets and their position. Imagine a strike situation in healthcare will a sympathy strike in daycare. The unions will never admit to the profit statement and spin to the direction that their best intention revolves around the individual and their rights.

The truth is simple. Ask one question, how much would the individuals and their rights matter if they did not pay a due to the unions?

No means no, sovereignty

Paul Martin's Liberals have declined the American's invitation to the missile defense system for North America.

What does this mean? It means the NDP are thrilled and the Bloc have been assured they have a Liberal ear to whisper ideas into. What don't they seem to understand? The U.S. will continue to defend their airspace, and Canada's, should a threat be present. This means that Canada has declined a seat to the table where decisions are made to protect this country. The decisions will be still be made and threats will still be shot down, in Canada or the U.S.

This position, influenced by so many anti-American, Liberal backbenchers, the NDP and the Bloc is surprising. These groups continue to position Canada as a nation that has it's own identity, makes it's own decisions and is tied together by 'institutions' like the CBC. When making points of a nation's unique identity and decision-making capabilities why would they influence a decision to release our sovereignty with respect to defense?