In my opinion things changed in 1960 when Lester B. Pearson organized a gathering of academics, writers and politicians in Kingston, Ontario. This gathering, known as the Kingston Conference, was what historians generally credit with shaping Liberal Party policy for the better part of a generation.

Consequently the Canada of today have been largely created by elitist, socialist liberal do gooders who care more about street gangs and criminals than they do about their victims. Make no mistake. This is true. Just listen to what they say.

This sad state of affairs can be boiled down to four things; socialism, multiculturalism, political correctness and rampant, no-questions-asked immigration of the wrong kind of people.

To paraphrase someone else (name escapes me); "No matter how pure their motives, socialists make Canada and its citizens less noble people!"

Kate; I see you are up late... again. Man o man you have to get more sleep.

Thank-you for that John C. People have 'changed ' in this country - my grandparents would not recognize their own country were they alive today. The 'guilt' that the gumments of the left have plagued the Canadian people with has left a void in our hearts for our beautiful country. It seems to belong to everyone but the citizens who were born here. Lets hope Monte Solberg reads your post. It is a keeper.

I sometimes think we have successfully manasged to reduce our country from a dominion to an indifferent corporate wordmark.

Typo alert!

"managed"

Kate,
Thanks for that piece. It is unfortunate that these bedrock values and virtues that formed and shaped our great country have now become "quaint" and outdated. People today regard "pledging allegiance" with disdain and disregard.
People can find many ways to criticize the USA but when it comes to patriotism, love of country, loyalty and destiny, they come second to none. I don't like their arrogance but I admire their passion. We could take a lesson from them.
We have been blessed with such abundance in Canada that we take it for granted and don't really appreciate it as we should. Those who have traveled abroad to poorer countries often come back with a renewed appreciation for what we have. I have wondered where the disconnect comes from. Is it the educational system that doesn't give proper weight to "love of country" or does it perhaps start even earlier in our homes? Or is patriotism actually there beneath the surface in every Canadian heart waiting for the right spark to rekindle the fire?
Daniel

Given Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party's hostility to the Canadian Wheat Board, I doubt they'd be able to take the part of the pledge that promises support to Canadian producers.

It saddens me to think what Canada has become, especially in the major cities.

There is no sense of personal responsibility or care towards one's neighbours. How our social fabric has degenerated.

Politeness has disappeared from our discourse and has been replaced by rudeness and presumptious notions.

So politically correct that our new Canadians are easily a captive audience for the politics of division, for the presumption of intolerance of those who came from the farms and carried with them the natural Canadian work ethic.

Todays Liberals have villified the traditional rural Canadian as anti-immigrant and intolerant.
The LPC is squarely to blame for the loss of nobility with which we once regarded our land and her people.
Our identity of self has evolved from a polite and professional quietude to a series of loud self-righteous diatribes of imported religious zealots hollering for their rights and the rights to circumvent our laws and secular custom, never stopping to think of their responsibilities to the nation as a whole.

Canada is now in desperate trouble from social engineering and also fiscal irresponsibility and the dominance of Canadian Liberalism which they re-enforced themselves with their reckless immigration policies.Read more Liberal votes, and to hell with the people who pay the bills.

The LPC is squarely to blame for our malaise, especially in urban Canada.

Daniel:..."Or is patriotism actually there beneath the surface in every Canadian heart waiting for the right spark to rekindle the fire?"

I believe it is there (in what I would identify as the Canadian core). Our patriotism is different than that of the Americans, though, at least in the way we express it. As I've expressed to my US in-laws many times, we don't slap a flag on every that sits and those things that move as well. I personally believe that goes visually overboard. It's simply not 'our' way.

A lot of countries(2-300 year old range) are multi-cultural by their very nature, as they were populated by immigrants looking for a better life. Part of the problem here is that the LPC politicized a reality into a concept, to mine for votes. Whether divide and conquer was the intent or not, it certainly was the result. Our newest arrivals don't know of our past, in most cases, and they don't have to nor want to learn. Unfortunately, sometimes the same can be said for 3rd, 4th and 5th generations as well.

The problem...obvious...the solution...not totally sure, although I know where I would start.

Cheers.

I can't believe all of the Doom-and-Gloom, Hate-Canada, Blame-Canada-First voices I read here.

TruthSeeker:...that isn't what I'm reading...depends on one's view point or one's point of view, I guess.

Garry:

That's my whole point. I read a lot on this site and others about how anybody who criticizes the policies of the Bush administration is "anti-American" or "hates America" or is projecting "doom and gloom". So when turning the critical lense on Liberal Party policy, you see that you don't have to hate a country to hate its policies.

Posting here is like kicking in an open door for me. Need to find a place where I can change some minds that need changing!

Truth Seeker:...I couldn't agree more with your last sentence...I'm more of a 'glass half full' person who keeps a critical eye to the half empty portion. Take care.

Might not be a bad idea for our Canadian classrooms to have " I Believe in Canada" mounted on the wall of every school room. It seems to me, that the way to change the attitude of " being Canadian has nothing to offer", is to first give our children something to believe in and to be proud of.

For 3 decades, we have heard little but jokes and mockery of our armed forces. That is one place to start. If we all can find room in our heads... and hearts... to admit that our men and women who are in this countries armed forces are trying to make a difference in the world, then maybe we can find a fragment of pride to build upon.

I for one, am proud of being Canadian. I for one, like to complain about government policy from time to time.... but at the same time, there is a sense of pride that makes me want to correct the wrongs I think are happening. To me, having differences of opinion can only make us stronger. It forces us all to think about what we believe. It forces others to come out of their apathetic mind sets. It seems to me the place to start to change the apathy towards our country and against our government, is to give people something to believe in. A pledge like the one Kate has provided here, is a little place to start.

Stephen - Do you know anything about the Canadian Wheat Board? Why do Ontario's producers not have to follow the same rules as Alberta's and Saskatchewan's. Is Ontario not part of Canada??

Grant:...well said...I believe that part of the problem (and part of the solution) lies in the cloudy definition of what a "Canadian" is. I remember attending the 'caped crusader' meetings that Bulroney arranged prior to his second election (can't precisely remember what they were called...National Unity Meetings with Keith Spicer at the helm??) and people were asked to define what a Canadian was...the only definition that eminated from 3 different groups I attended was with reference to our universal healthcare. I remember feeling uneasy because even I had difficulty finding a definition (I knew what my heart said but it was not easily put into words). It's what is in the heart that is true patriotism and not just what is visually displayed (a partial example of the difference between an American and a Canadian).

Yes, it would be a place to start but it would require keeping both the politicians and the pompous school boards out of the exercise.

Cheers.

and to D. W. Baldwin:...a "well said" to you as well...didn't mean to be out of sequence.

Crown wants adman Brault to serve time

"Jean Brault should serve two to three years in a federal prison for his pivotal role in a fraud scheme that "ate like gangrene" at our democracy"

"This crime demands a jail sentence that should reflect the sacred character of public funds," Dagenais told Superior Court Justice Fraser Martin at Brault's sentencing hearing.

"We must underline the gravity of the theft of public funds." + more
http://www.paulding.net/bin/url.cgi/13237.19
montreal gazette via newsbeat1.com

Steven;did you ever let the Canadian Wheat Board sell anything for you? I did and they did a p--- poor job of it.I got into the pedigreed seed business because of the poor job that they did selling my produce.

Gary - you hit the nail on the head questioning what being "Canadian" means. The liberals and the NDP like to spout that they stand for Canadian Values and how they speak for the majority of Canadians - but they don't in the least stand for what I believe in. Somehow if you don't believe in a socialist agenda of the central government "taking care" of everyone whether you need it or not then you are seen as being a lessor Canadian. This couldn't be further from the truth because it was exactly the Canadian values of hard work, entepreniural spirit, being responsible for yourself and your family and yes, faith in a higher power that built this country. People came here from all over the world because they saw hope and a chance to make a life for themselves and their families. They brought their cultures but they didn't expect others to embrace that culture and because of that we did embrace it and welcomed them to our country. They took on those Canadian Values and worked hard and integrated their culture with ours to make this country.

Somehow over the past few generations, we have seen the "values" that attracted immigrants and built Canada somehow get lost in the socialist agenda of "we will take care of you". What this has done - in my view - is allow citizens to abdigate responsibility for their actions - immigrants now expect to come to our country and force Canadians to accept their beliefs, minorities force the rest of the population to bow to their wishes. Somehow the "values" that Canada was built on have begun to become blurred so that the younger generation really has no concept of "values" and what they stand for.

How do we define Canadian values today? That is the question!

To follow up on Garry P's remark about "feeling uneasy because even I had difficulty finding a definition" of being Canadian, I think at the heart of our problem is the Trudeaupian image of what a Canadian should be, which the media and academic (sic) elites have been pushing at us and our kids for the past 40 years. You know what I'm talking about: The sensitive, multi-culti, pro-feminist-leftist-socialist-small "l" liberal, anti-military, anti-British, anti-children (especially those reared in their own homes by--horror of horrors--their own mom or dad), Canadian values etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Any Canadian who has dared to raise their voice or head above this blanket definition of what a Trudeaupian Canadian is--and the "Canadian values" we are supposed to espouse--has the "Canadian book" hurled at them and is called every pejorative name in that book: extremist, right wing, conservative, neanderthal, racist, bigoted, homophobic, out-of-touch, anti-woman, anti-progress...you fill in the rest of the blanks. We are also, almost universally, kept out of the media loop, which is why, of course, blogs are such a Godsend and may just begin to turn things around, though it takes an awfully long time to turn a fast ocean-going ship around, let alone slow it down first.

Unfortunately, and tragically, most Canadians don't have the stomach or backbone to stand up to this kind of negative onslaught. Unless we are willing, however, to take back our history and what has made Canada great in the past--our Parliamentary and judicial systems based on standing-the-test-of-time Judeo-Christian values, which properly upheld real--not imagined or manufactured--freedoms; our willingness to take a stand on the world stage against totalitarian tyrannies; our respect for, and upholding of, legitimate authority; our truly educating our children, not indoctrinating them with state-held propaganda, to name a few things we have lost--we are doomed to become just another banana republic, which we were well on our way to becoming under the Chretien/Martin Liberals.

Candians need to stand up and be counted. If we won't stand for something, we'll fall for anything--and we Canadians have just about fallen for a second-rate, rusty, totalitarian dictatorship of the Lieberals and their friends, allies, aiders, and abetters: the MSM.

At this point, we really have nothing to lose but our chains.

Alberta Girl and new kid on the block:...great posts!...I see an informative thread being weaved here...as I mentioned I see true patriotism as something of the heart and without verbal definition...that strong feeling of what and who we are. Now, how to transcribe it, if possible.

Now to some reasons for the apparent loss of the "ol' time values"...they are many. Each generation has tried to come up with a better mouse-trap...I know I did! But as I aged (grew older and hopefuly a little wiser...I'll only say 3 things here for now)...I saw 1/ how the two parents working/latch key family structure did not lead to the best possible family unit values (as you already said), 2/ how privledges has become synomimous with rights and 3/ how equality somehow turned into 'sameness'.

Food for thought...nothing earth shattering but simply a re-emphasis of what, I believe, has already been proven by our history.

And in closing this post, I think that in finding out who you are you must first find out who you aren't... therein doth lie both the problem and the solution?

The American flag has a much longer history than the Canadian flag.

The Stars and Stripes has flown and triumphed in so many of this worlds great battles.

Americans love for their flag and for their country is certainly not arrogant. It comes from the long history and the many sacrifices Americans have made for their country.

Canada has such self doubt.

Flag envy is just one symptom.

Canadas life long problem is how to differentiate itself from a neighbouring country that is actually no different.

Canadians and Americans are REALLY one and the same people, with the same ancestors, same values, etc, etc.

Proving otherwise has ALWAYS been Ottawas' dilema and is a constant problem.

Canadian leaders have often eased the problem by pointing the finger of blame at the USA and diverting attention away from Canadas own problems and responsibilities.

It is called triangulation and we should all learn to recognize it as Ottawa politicians will often use it to deflect criticism away from themselves and onto Washington.

If 48.6% of families have incomes less than $40,000 a year then you can't blame socialists or Liberals because they set wages.
Corporate have consistently lowered their share of the taxes paid until they are now approaching single digit tax levels. This does not indicate they are being run by socialists. This indicates they are being run by Capitalists who apparently have much more to sway in government than you and I. It is time to wake up and see what is really going on.
Even Alberta's oil doesn't belong to them. Under NAFTA they must send in to America. Mexico, that third world country south of the US, got oil exempted from their NAFTA agreement. A socialist government would never give away a non-renewable resource at 1% royalties. The Conservative government in Alberta did not get the best deal for its oil and neither are they keeping enough for the future. Norway started a heritage fund in 1995 and now has 250billion aready put away for future generations. How much have the Conservatives saved???

Support the new Conservative government for this.

This blog & others are read by the Prime Minister's Office & others. Show your support of this. Salute to Immigration Minister Solberg. +

Ottawa rejects U.S. model on workers - Illegal employees will have to apply legally
Posted by aCDNinUSA
On 03/30/2006 7:29:08 AM PST · 13 replies · 169+ views

The Toronto Star ^ | March 29, 2006 | BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
Ottawa rejects U.S. model on workers Illegal employees will have to apply legally American policy sends wrong signal: Solberg Mar. 29, 2006. 01:00 AM BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH OTTAWA BUREAU OTTAWA—The federal government has no plans to follow in the footsteps of the United States, which appears ready to give as many as 11 million illegal workers a chance at U.S. citizenship, Immigration Minister Monte Solberg says. Solberg bluntly rejected the U.S. proposal as a solution for Canada, saying that letting illegal workers remain in this country would send the signal that it's okay to slip in the back door. "The ideal,.. + more
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1606116/posts

Hey steve d: My family, until very recently, WAS one of those Canadian families living on less than $40000/year, doing our darndest for me to stay home with our children, because we wanted to teach them our values, not have them inculcated with the Trudeaupian values being taught in the schools and elsewhere. (Our kids went to public schools because, obviously, we coulnd't afford to send them to a private school, but we watched and listened very carefully to find out what they were being taught, and tried to balance the left-leaning propaganda with the facts as we understood them.)

Guess how the Liberal government treated those of us who made the (sacrificial) decision to stay home with their own child(ren)? And I'm not talking about families living on doctors', lawyers,' corporate CEO's, or bankers' salaries.

They TAXED US TO THE MAX and completely devalued what a stay-at-home parent contributes to society. I was treated like a leper, especially by my radical feminist "sisters" (who had the ear of the Liberal party--not to mention having their hands deep into the federal coffers)even though I was a volunteer extraordinaire, and one of the few parents who went into the classroom to help with remedial reading, speech therapy, Block Parent advocacy, etc. or accompany my children's classes on field trips, sometimes overnight. I volunteered at the local library and at the local Nursing Home, sold daffodils for cancer research, went door-to-door for the Heart Foundation, baked muffins for and visited the sick and shut-ins etc., etc., and not because my family "could afford" for me to be home and to volunteer in my community.

I was treated like s____ by the left-lib-feminist values of the Liberal government, especially when I wrote to them to ask for a level taxpaying field with women who work outside the home. My sister coined the apt phrase "Equal pay for kids of equal value," which is all that I was asking.

Anyway, I hope you get the picture. Sure, the rich among us--I'm not one of them--should be taking more responsibility for shouldering burdens in our society, but don't forget, many of them are philanthropists and create jobs for millions of Canadians.

Your tax dollars, collected/seized by the former Liberal federal government, went to help pay for this "stuff".

This is scandalous, indeed.

Premier Charest, Mario Dumont, & others have attacked this scam. +

Scandalous Sovereignty Schoolbook Depicts Canadian Flag Being Ripped in Half

In the opening pages, a sample drawing for a kindergarten arts-and-crafts activity focusing on Quebec's Fete Nationale shows a Quebec flag ripping a Canadian one in two as smiling celebrants look on.
...
Rejean Parent, the head of Quebec's largest teachers' union, a traditional ally of the sovereignty movement, said his members would not participate in the "brainwashing operation" proposed by the Conseil de la souverainete. + more
via nealenews.com
http://www.paulding.net/bin/url.cgi/13237.23

concrete:..."flag envy is just one symptom"...

I reread your post and I can agree with it except for the flag envy part...while Americans and Canadians are pretty much the same, this is where we are different: I personally don't believe we (Canadians) are as 'in-your-face' about the flag. We aren't as boisterous and visual when it comes to showing our patriotism. But I believe it is there...just, at times, doesn't know when to come out. A bad thing? I think not.

One more thought: the elusive question of "What is the difference between an American and a Canadian was best answered, IMO, by Pierre Berton (not necessarily to answer to all but certainly a proud Canadian) when he said:...(I paraphrase) "The difference lies in how our countries came into being...the US through a revolution and Canada through debate". The definitive answer...maybe not but a good one none the less.

Thanks.

concrete,
I recall somewhere Mark Steyn remarking that the Canadian flag is probably the best example of a corporate logo. You're right, it certainly doesn't represent any strong ideals or sense of history. It's another means of reinforcing "statism." I personally, find it an embarrassing symbol, something you find at hockey games, not on a battlefield, or even a battlefield of ideas.

new kid on the block:...you did the right thing and have now (and continuing into the future) the positive results in your children. Your descriptive sounds like mine although I wouldn't have gone the private school route, personally, even if I could have. It also has it's faults at least in my area. Our children's education truly is at home, as they learn what is happening in the world around them including what they are being taught in school. Bravo to you! Who did/does the wrong thing...(you already told us).

Garry,
I find that an insightful quote from PB. It's no more than wishful thinking. Debate, indeed. More like mommy England loosening the apron strings. Canadians, other than service in WWII, have never really put it all on the line for a belief. You have no idea how living right next to the US has made life so much easier. Look at Australia. That's chracter.

Anyone know where the name "Dominion" of Canada and our motto "from sea to sea" came from? Not wanting to shock anyone, but they come directly from Psalm 72(8). The Psalms and seas are still there, but how slight and small we've become through our journey down the ever-narrowing straits of political correctness.

Doug:...you seem to make part of my point, IMO. "Wishful thinking" is where a dream begins and through our dreams and actions comes hope. Without hope, all is lost, isn't it? I didn't suggest it was the only definition/descriptive to the question, only one that I'd heard.

How would you answer the same question?

P.s...."Debate, indeed"...I believe the comment relates to how the British system of a Parliament structure really was where the "bullets" were fired as opposed to the lifting of rifles, inside our borders (I could sit corrected on my opinion if someone else heard the statement from PB and has a different take on it). And Mother England...of course she allowed the 'kid' to attempt to learn to walk on it's own. As for the "You have no idea how living right next to the US has made life so much easier"...actually I do...lived my formative years within 1 1/2 miles of the US border and have been married to a American for over 20 years.

And your answer Doug?...

I know many Canadians have a love for their flag and country and I think rightly so.

But far too many Canadians are confused and reluctant to address the importance of patriotic love AND duty for the many blessings bestowed upon them thanks to their flag and their country.

I blame the socialists and liberals and the UN. I hate those guys. :0))

The USA flag has ALWAYS been heavily invested with Americas' blood and Americas' treasure.

The numbers of Americans who have died willingly under that flag and have given all, tells all.

Because of these great sacrifices for their flag there are also many rules that have come about over time in the USA regarding flag etiquette (one of them being that the USA flag is never worn except as a shoulder patch on certain uniforms, giving rise to the often repeated Canadian myth about Americans being ashamed to wear the USA flags on their backpacks while overseas).

For those interested in flag etiquette there is much more info here,

http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html

maz2:...I do enjoy your posts...but..."a sample drawing for a kindergarten arts-and-crafts activity..."...plse don't tell me this is just another 'Danish cartoon fiasco'?

From an American point of view, I think you all should be proud that Canada was the 2nd nation, behind only Israel to cut off funding to Hamas.

No funding of terrorists. period.

Hey Garry P: Thanks for the kudos!! It's kind of nice to be affirmed for a change. :-)

And you're right: I do "have now (and continuing into the future) the positive results in [my] children." They are very level-headed, contributing to society, loving kids, who have not bought into the pc crappola. They're both at university (another hurdle to jump, financially and ideologically--as academia is especially left-lib-fem-socialist--in other words, quite out of touch with reality) and, aside from the usual and normal trying to figure out who the heck they are, along with which goes some confusion and soul-searching, they're pretty savvy when it comes to the pc stuff thrown their way.

BTW: I agree with you on the private school front. Even if we had been able to afford a private school for our kids, they're no haven of sanity, either. They've bought into a lot of the pc/elitist nonsense and have the added burden of MONEY, which means drugs, alcohol, and classy rendez-vous, because in too many cases neither mom or dad are checking in on them. Poor little rich kids. :-(

Re: our flag. I was a teenager when our new one was unveiled, and I still dislike it. It looks far too much like a beer logo: nothing against beer. But where's our past? Where's our history? To not know our past--which present-day history texts in our schools ensure--means that we are doomed to repeat all that is destructive in it, which seems precisely what we're doing.

CANADIANS: WAKE UP!!

Re: Posting of DWBaldwin at 5:47 AM (Bad night ??)
Most of us no longer live on the farm.
Our vibrand cities are now the major stakeholders.
Most city dwellers do care for their fellow citizens.
When we look south of the border or to Europe it appears that our LMC society is holding up fairly well.
Much remains to be done but hopefully we can adchieve a succesfull future while remaining compasionate about our fellow man all over this small world we share.

I think things took a turn when we changed the flag back in the '60s. If I recall correctly, it is the only time a nation changed its flag without some kind of dramatic change in its form of government, usually through revolution. We ditched a time honoured design that saw our soldiers through battlefields from South Africa to Korea, for a simplistic corporate logo that looks more like a Liberal Party banner than a national flag. Now the government uses the flag, which has traditionally been the symbol of th people, in place of the traditional symbol of the state, the coat of arms.

It's best summed up by Mark Steyn, who I believe said "Canada is the only country in the world to celebrate its heritage by destroying it".

"He did not flee to save his own life."

Auschwitz escapee who told the world dies in B.C.
theglobeandmail ^ | march 31, 06 | MARK HUME

Posted on 03/31/2006 3:08:46 AM PST by lunarbicep

VANCOUVER -- When Rudolph Vrba fled Auschwitz in the spring of 1944, he made what may have been the most monumental escape of all time, slipping past Nazi guards and attack dogs that were trained to rip prisoners to pieces.

Although his life ended quietly this week in Vancouver, where he succumbed to cancer at age 82, his escape shook the world 62 years ago because of the secret he and a fellow prisoner revealed.

They told the world about Auschwitz.

Dr. Vrba's feat was remarkable not merely because of what he did -- managing, with prisoner Alfred Wetzler, to confound a Nazi security system that killed hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Jewish prisoners -- but because of why he did it.

He did not flee to save his own life. He made the suicidal escape bid, which succeeded against all odds, to warn Hungarian Jews that they were about to be rounded up by the SS and sent to the gas chambers.

He and Mr. Wetzler, who died in Slovakia in 1988, brought the first eyewitness accounts of Auschwitz-Birkenau, writing a shocking and detailed report about what was taking place in the death camp.

Although their warning, which became known as the Auschwitz Protocols, was delayed in its release until after mass transports of Hungarian Jews had started, Dr. Vrba and Mr. Wetzler are widely credited with sounding an alarm that saved 100,000 lives.

Ruth Linn, dean of education at Haifa University in Israel, and author of a book about Dr. Vrba's experiences, described the emeritus professor of pharmacology at the University of British Columbia yesterday as a hero.

"We have lost a rare history maker that the history tellers are yet to find the right words to describe," she said in an e-mail.

"Dr. Vrba was an exemplary courageous hero and warrior, an independent thinker who had never feared confronting the establishment.

"He was a scholar who knew the power of knowledge, a person who believed that the deportees to Auschwitz should have been given that power too. He believed that if they knew the fate [that] awaits them upon arrival in Auschwitz, many lives would have been saved. He promised himself to bring them that knowledge, and he kept his promise."

Bernie Farber, CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said he first heard Dr. Vrba speak about his experiences in Auschwitz when he appeared as a prosecution witness in Ernst Zundel's 1985 hate trial.

"There are very few stories from those that were actually there . . . [and] his story was breathtaking," Mr. Farber said yesterday.

"He had what's been described as a photographic memory. He was able to recall the numbers of those who were killed. He was able to give eyewitness testimony that was unshakable, and he played a pivotal role in Zundel's conviction. . . . He was able to tell the story with such clarity that people were able to understand the Holocaust." +
more:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1606684/posts

new kid on the block

My wife stayed home for almost 5 years with our child even though we couldn't afford it. It was a great five for the whole family. Unfortunately, I couldn't support the family on my own income alone so she had to go back to work. So I know all about how stay at homes get the shaft.
It is unfortunate you blame the government who taxes you and not the employer who pays you so little you can't afford to be taxed.
In my experience any tax is too much when you have a family earning less than $40,000 a year. That said, with all the deductions you should not have paid more than 3-5thousand.
I think the problem, the 48.6% of families earning under $40,000 indicates there is a problem, it is with employers.
That's not to say that governments aren't partly to blame they are. They regularly give tax breaks that favour the rich over the poor. This new Conservative government is going to be no different. If they get to implement all their tax cuts the rich will get several times more than the average family.

An enlightening debate and hardly a troll sighting. I find a lot of truth in the "What is Canada" being changed by the politically correect social engineers and history "re-evaluators". Do they still teach Canadian history these days? Anyone recall or remember Frog Lake? How about what happened at Craigallichie, British Columbia in 1885? Which country had the third largest navy at the end of the second world war. And (a favourite of mine) who burned down the White House in 1812?

New Kid: For your values and contribution to Canadian society, I salute you. You are also a darned good writer with inciteful comments.

Although this was spoken by an American, I think the same thing can and should be said to today's Canadians :
"ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country."

Texas Canuck
The War of 1812 is a part of history I like to remind Americans about. You see they attacked us expecting that we would welcome them with open arms for freeing us from British rule. They got a big surprise when we joined the British to defend the colony!
This story was repeated in Iraq. They expected to be welcomed as saviours and instead got an insurgency.

steve d:...you must be speaking of the Fenian raids??

Texas Canuck: My cup runneth over! Thanks for the encouragement. God knows, we all need some very once in a while.

steve d.: 'Good to know that your child had a shot at being home with mom. It does make a difference. (And lest I be accused of "being against working-outside-the-home or single moms"--who for the most part can't be/aren't home with their kids, my mother was a single mom who worked outside the home. That's why I know, firsthand, FROM A KID'S POINT OF VIEW, how hard it is to come home from school to an empty house, etc., etc....)

You say "It is unfortunate you blame the government who taxes you and not the employer who pays you so little you can't afford to be taxed...That's not to say that governments aren't partly to blame they are. They regularly give tax breaks that favour the rich over the poor."

I guess my feeling is, steve, that all of us are not going to work for employers who can afford to pay us more than $40000, and we have choices about this. My husband, with three university degrees, is in a job which is a vocation, and his "yes" to pursue his vocation is largely why we have lived on a lot less than other couples with our education.

But, as for the government's culpability, in being so unsupportive of families with a parent home to care for the kid/s, here's a true story:

Neighbours of ours, when all of our children were under six, were a two-salary family. They had paid off their mortgage, they had installed a $39000 pool and patio in their backyard, etc. We, across the street, lived on 1/3 of their family income and we didn't own our house. I had no problem with our neighbours' affluence, we had all made choices about our lives, and we got along very well with them.

When both families decided to send our four-year-olds to a local nursery school three afternoons a week, I was the one who usually took them and picked them up as my husband, and the parents of the other child, were "working."

In February of that year, when I went to pick up my daughter and our neighbour's son, there was a sign on the nursery school door: WORKING MOTHERS MAY PICK UP THEIR INCOME TAX RECEIPTS.

I immediately wrote the Minister of Finance to say that I WAS a working mother but happened to work inside my home and also volunteered in my community. I was, by the way, the "blizzard mom" in our neighbourhood; we lived in a snow belt and when the school shut down early, I'd get calls from all of the other mothers to ask if their child(ren) could come to my house. I was happy to have them. We ate popcorn and watched a video.

My point is, why were women who were working outside the home and whose salaries combined with their husband's were often two to three times that of a single-income family allowed to write off the nursery school and other expenses of having children, while the stay-at-home parent was not allowed to? I asked for a level tax-paying field with the working-outside-the- home mom.

The government's response? Too many women stayed home with their children under six for the government to be able to afford to give us the same tax deductions AND the government had made the decision to support women in the workplace. Of course, it was said euphamistically (on beautiful linen paper), but this was the essence of the government's position. The year was 1987.

Thanks, guys.

So, essentially, the government made two classes of mothers/parents, and made it very clear that they valued NOT AT ALL the contributions to society of stay-at-home parents. (I am not saying that parents working outside the home weren't also contributing to society; the point I'm making is that the governments's decision to allow certain deductions only where both parents were working--AND, OF COURSE, PAYING INCOME TAX--and not for one-income families, created a genuine hardship for those of us living on limited salaries. Afterall, milk, snow suits, shoes, boots, etc. cost us the same amount as they cost other families.

It was a challenging time. It's as though the government was punishing any family who refused to bow down to the prevailing "orthodoxy"--that mothers'/fathers' staying home with their children constituted a waste of their talents, and for a woman to "be fulfilled" she had to leave her children in the care of others to pursue her "fullest potential."

Society is paying big-time for this mindset which has been rigidly adhered to by Canadian governments for over 25 years--aided and abetted, it must be acknowledged, by the dominant radical feminist view of women: which is, that we must pursue our own fulfillment apart from the aspirations of our children and spouses. Women's power, said the National Action Council on the Status of Women, back in the '80s, was tied to economic power, which meant that women were to be encouraged at every turn to leave their kitchens and wee ones to pursue earning power with which to bring about a brave new world for women: so-called "equality with men" (sic) and (sick).

In the radical feminist lexicon, there was no way a woman could be "equal" with a man if she pursued her biological destiny of having and caring for her own child(ren). She was encouraged to farm them out to others and "work" for money so that her voice could be heard.

I can tell you, if you were in the "stay-at-home mom trench" in the '80s and into the '90s, which I was, you got no respect. Thank God my husband, my kids, and my sisters love me! Thank God I was convinced of the efficacy of my choice to stay home with my husband's and my daughters. I sure couldn't count on much support from any other sector of our increasingly secular and materialistic society.

So, I'm with the Conservatives on this one, and their proposal to give ALL families $1200/year to do with AS THEY CHOOSE. Only people making big salaries (I wonder what that would be like? :-) have the nerve to say that this amount is peanuts. What our family could have done with $2400/year. Sigh. That would have been BIG BUCKS to us--and still is for families living on limited incomes, especially if they have more than one child.

So, I rest my case. Thanks for listening.

Hello new kid on the block (same goes for me)\

Although as an X-single breadwinner in a family of 5 (now retired) I can commensurate with many of the frustrations expresssed regarding our unfair taxation regime with regards to those providing and supporting the backbone of our society (the family unit)
However I am still proud of my daughter, who is staying at home with several small children and voted against the $1200/yr/child and in favour of the universally accessable daycare system as put in place by the Liberals. (hopefully Stevy will fail to dismantle it)
I would like to see my taxes go to a system that would give preference to single working mothers and other marginalised individuals so as to provide maximum benefit to (collectively) all of our needy children !!
PS
After 40 years as married taxpayers my wife and I are still being penalised for being eachothers dependants !!

Re dutchymtl's comment:

To implement a universal daycare program in Canada would be to bankrupt the country: Who's going to pay for it? The decreasing demographic of young people--who are already going to have to foot the bill for us ageing Boomers? (Either that, or we Boomers will be looking at, instead of Freedom 55, Freedom 85, which my husband and I, not completely as a joke, are aiming for.)

A universal daycare program "that would give preference to single working mothers and other marginalised individuals so as to provide maximum benefit to (collectively) all of our needy children" does nothing to encourage the formation of two-parent families which, according to the latest social research (plain common sense tells you the same thing), greatly benefit children in the family equation.

'Have just come across Kay S. Hyumowitz's article "Marriage and Caste:America’s chief source of inequality? The Marriage Gap" (Google City Journal), which makes it abundantly clear that the children most at risk of not graduating from high school, high unemployment, living in poverty, not fulfilling potential, etc. are those from single-parent families--and why it is that a father/mother family is of such benefit to the raising of children. THERE: I said it. I have stated the obvious: CHILDREN GROWING UP IN TWO-PARENT FAMILIES ARE MORE LIKELY TO EXPERIENCE BETTER OPPPORTUNITIES FOR SUCCESS IN LIFE THAN CHILDREN GROWING UP IN SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES: A no-no in La-La-Land, but I refuse to jump down Alice's Rabbit Hole and to take the get-small pill.

We started this great (as in large, expansive) experiment of no-marriage or revolving-door marriages (aka "blended families": IMO "curdled families"--of which there are quite a few in my own extended family) back in the '60s, which has just about been an unmitigated disaster, especially if you look at it from the perspective of our children's well-being.

I am clear that universal daycare is not the answer to child rearing in Canada. Just look at the experiments of the Kibbutzim in Israel and in every socialist/collectivist state in the past 60 years. In every case, these daycare experiments have failed miserably. Can anyone justify them by providing evidence of successful, fulfilled youth, who have then contributed to a vital and vibrant society?

PS Believing in Canada means less Nanny State, which means no universal daycare, and more personal responsibility, which means parents being accountable for their own offspring and depending more on their own resources, with SOME help from the government. That's the way it used to be, and our families and children were not in the mess we find ourselves and our society in today...

new kid on the block

I hear ya! Ditto.

My only bone to pick with you is your being appeased by $1200. You know that is before tax so you would end up with perhaps 600 to 900 depending on income. It is certainly better than nothing but it is nothing to get excited about either.
Some are definitely more equal than others.
In Ontario my daughter was in grade 7 when Harris started stripping the schools of funding and centralizing all decisions in the education ministers office. Naturally, everybody was upset and angry. Protests started and curriculum was changed(again)the previous government had just changed the curriculum 2yrs prior! Needless to say chaos reigned and the teachers were depressed. So I had to get my daughter out to private school(we didnt want her victimized by this BS).
It was while my daughter was in private school that I found out that those who owned their own business had a way of getting their tuitions subsidized by the tax system. I never found out the details but I was told matter of factly that It was being done. Then the Tories decided that the private school parents needed a tax credit for their tuitions!! So figure it out they got the company to buy the car, got tax credits for operating expenses and got their daughters education subsidized by government. These people of course thought Harris was a hero for cutting welfare payments 22%. Unbelievable.
Oh yeah, and the business bought a lot of their food too(staff room supplies overpurchasing). Meanwhile the welfare families had to go to food banks because they had nothing left after the rent was paid.

New kid on the block.

I just think that being blind to the realities that exist "on the ground" today and commensurating about how great things used to be in the past, will not provide us with the best answers for the future.
We only have to look at our southern nabours to see the results when one tries to go about improving this world using "macho" and "retro" outdated methods.
Playing the Ostrich and ignoring that about 60% of couples today are both working and no longer getting married is like living in LaLaLand allright.

I think the major difference between the American flag and the current Canadian flag is that so few have died defending the current Maple leaf. Now the old Red ensign thousands died defending it. Canadians were dieing defending freedom for more than a year before Americans were in WW2. I am a proud American but if I was a Canadian I would be flying the 'old' red ensign in honor of all the brave heros who died defending it. Freedom come from the blood of heros not some politicans giving a speech in front of some t.v. camera.

all gave some
SOME GAVE ALL

I appreciate your graciousness in disagreeing with me, dutchymtl, but as for your comment "Playing the Ostrich and ignoring that about 60% of couples today are both working and no longer getting married is like living in LaLaLand allright" I have to demur.

The ostriches are those who don't seem to realize that Canadian adults are massively neglecting and abandoning our most precious resource: our children. And this is happening because of fatherless families and too many double-income families. Look, my husband and I lived on a very modest income in order for me to stay home with our children; we didn't--and still don't--have matching furniture and I don't have the wardrobe I would choose if I had more money. We didn't have a lot of things our more affluent (and double-income) neighbours had, but what we did have was a tight family unit which, by the way, gave a lot of support to single-mom families in our neighbourhood (about 80% of my daughters' friends lived in single-parent families). I babysat for them (no charge) when their moms were doing the late shift at the local gas bar or one of the town's restaurants, or when a mom got caught in a blizzard too far away to get home that day (her four kids camped out on my kids' bedroom floors).

Check out the statistics around troubled youth who end up in lives of crime and then in detention centres or jail: There is no corelation between poverty and a life of crime. The corelation is between fatherless families and a life of crime. Something like 80% of these young people are from homes with no fathers.

THAT'S the reality. Ostriches are the ones who refuse to see that if we don't accurately diagnose the problem, the patient dies. It may be that these facts are not politically correct--nor comfortable for the multitude of parents who, quite inadvertently, no doubt, are neglecting their child(ren), but the fact is, kids don't bring themselves up and they do far, far better with the guidance and support of two parents.

To NEW KID ON THE BLOCK

I guess our lifestiles are (were) quite similar. Always a Mom at home to bring up the children and support others that were in need for whatever fictitious reasons. I also agree that the gouvernements we (or rather the majority of us) elect, encourage the "double income" family syndrome to the detriment of our society, the family unit and children in particular. This in turn results in higher crime rates, suicides, school drop-outs, sexual promiscuity, etc.etc. Still, once again, if there is no father, and Mom has to work and soon there will be not be any good samaritan nabours (like us) left at home anymore.......
A universal daycare is a practical way to go at this particular time in our history. Who knows, may be in another decade or two or three, we will come full circle and return to sanity.
In the meantime to give those two family earners some extra cash to get rid of their children makes me squeamish. I would rather see a means test and make them pay and pay and pay, double or triple not only for day care but also for many other services they think they need (INCREASE the GST) and possibly it will help them come to the conclusion that their children are more valuable than a few extra (highly taxed) dollars for wardrobe updates and matching furniture.