Prime Minister's Speech tonight to Public Servants
Canadaka @ Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:07 pm
$1:
On September 20, 2005, Prime Minister Paul Martin addressed a meeting of senior public servants at the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Gatineau, Quebec.
www.cpac.com
I rarely watch tv, mostly because i don't have cable. But recently I found out i get some random channels for free, one of those channels is CPAC.
I flipped it on while i was eating and Paul Martin was on, just starting a 1 hour long speach.
I have to say i was VERY impressed and my opionion of Martin was boosted a lot. His vision for Canada i completely agree with.
The speech was about the future of Canada with a strong emphasis on the aging population and the growing power of china and india. During the speach he touched on a great number of subjects.
I have to say that Martin is a great public speaker and comes across as very intelligent. It was the first time that my Dual Canada-American girlfieend had really watched our PM speak like this, and she was VERY impressed, a drastic contrast to George Bush.
DId anyone else see this speeach, your opionions?
hwacker @ Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:19 pm
Did he say when he's going to give back the money?
Or when his buddies are going to jail for their part in adscam?
I guess he forgot to address that, Figures.
"His vision for Canada" is a free bank account for his party. but whats money, he can just go print some more.
Nice to know he’s got you bamboozled
ShepherdsDog @ Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:04 pm
As the old joke goes, "How can you tell when a politician is lying? When their lips are moving."
Streaker @ Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:21 pm
$1:
Child care key to confronting China, India: Martin
By ALEXANDER PANETTA
GATINEAU, Que. (CP) - Canada's competitive edge in the looming economic showdown with China and India must be honed soon after its toddlers leave the crib, Prime Minister Paul Martin said Tuesday.
The prime minister said his proposed national child-care plan will help Canadian tots get a head start in a global economy where only the smartest countries will thrive.
"It's about development and learning during the crucial time in life when potential is most readily nurtured and developed," Martin said in an address to senior bureaucrats.
Re-positioning Canada's economy for the next century was the central theme of his remarks. The address was constructed like a throne speech, laying out the Liberal government's agenda in the months before an election expected next March.
Polls indicate that much of the prime minister's popularity is built around his handling of the economy as finance minister. His government's agenda for the fall to boost productivity appears to play to that strength.
Before he could outline the future, Martin was forced to deal with the past in his speech.
He acknowledged that the sponsorship scandal stigmatized MPs and public servants.
"The issues related to the Gomery inquiry, issues that have reflected on both those who are elected and those who are professional public servants - these are unacceptable aberrations in a public sector that is honest, talented and committed to Canadians," Martin told his audience.
His proposed national daycare plan will be part of an agenda that will move his government beyond the scandal, Martin said.
The program will be an integral part of improving productivity, he said.
"A successful head start is important for all Canadians," Martin said.
"I am convinced that when future generations look back they will recognize in our pan-Canadian approach to early learning, a project of nation-building in the same sense as universal medicare."
Canadians must understand that the intellectual bar is being raised globally and only the best-educated countries will successfully compete.
"When (Microsoft founder) Bill Gates goes to China young people line up for hours and hang from the rafters just to listen to him. In China . . . Bill Gates is (like pop singer) Britney Spears," Martin said, quoting best-selling author Thomas Friedman.
"In North America, Britney Spears is Britney Spears."
He predicted China and India - which comprise one-third of the world's population - will vault upward in a race for top jobs in research-based industries. Canadians need to start developing learning skills before they get into formal schools, he added.
"Today we don't just want our children to succeed in school. We need them to."
The Liberal government has promised $5 billion over five years for new provincially run, low-fee day care programs and is in the process of striking funding deals with the provinces.
Six provinces - Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Alberta - have already signed on. Quebec's $7-a-day program is the model for the plan.
The Conservatives have dismissed the daycare plan as a potential bureaucratic boondoggle.
Martin's proposal for $5 billion over five years will not even come close to covering the cost of a Quebec-style program, they say.
They also contend that for all the Liberal talk about education, the nation's post-secondary institutions are chronically under-funded while students are buried under a mountain of tuition-related debt.
Tories say the daycare cash should simply be turned over to parents.
"I really don't think we need the Liberals telling us what we need to do to raise our children," said Tory critic Carol Skelton.
"I know lots of little children that read before they go to school and are very outgoing and have had the very best care from a stay-at-home mom. And grandmas, too."
Scandinavian countries have large government day-care programs similar to the one Canada is creating. But the taxes in Nordic countries also hover around the 50-per-cent mark of GDP - compared with under 40 per cent in Canada.
Martin also said Tuesday that the federal government would like to cut taxes while improving social programs.
Link
By ALEXANDER PANETTA
GATINEAU, Que. (CP) - Canada's competitive edge in the looming economic showdown with China and India must be honed soon after its toddlers leave the crib, Prime Minister Paul Martin said Tuesday.
The prime minister said his proposed national child-care plan will help Canadian tots get a head start in a global economy where only the smartest countries will thrive.
"It's about development and learning during the crucial time in life when potential is most readily nurtured and developed," Martin said in an address to senior bureaucrats.
Re-positioning Canada's economy for the next century was the central theme of his remarks. The address was constructed like a throne speech, laying out the Liberal government's agenda in the months before an election expected next March.
Polls indicate that much of the prime minister's popularity is built around his handling of the economy as finance minister. His government's agenda for the fall to boost productivity appears to play to that strength.
Before he could outline the future, Martin was forced to deal with the past in his speech.
He acknowledged that the sponsorship scandal stigmatized MPs and public servants.
"The issues related to the Gomery inquiry, issues that have reflected on both those who are elected and those who are professional public servants - these are unacceptable aberrations in a public sector that is honest, talented and committed to Canadians," Martin told his audience.
His proposed national daycare plan will be part of an agenda that will move his government beyond the scandal, Martin said.
The program will be an integral part of improving productivity, he said.
"A successful head start is important for all Canadians," Martin said.
"I am convinced that when future generations look back they will recognize in our pan-Canadian approach to early learning, a project of nation-building in the same sense as universal medicare."
Canadians must understand that the intellectual bar is being raised globally and only the best-educated countries will successfully compete.
"When (Microsoft founder) Bill Gates goes to China young people line up for hours and hang from the rafters just to listen to him. In China . . . Bill Gates is (like pop singer) Britney Spears," Martin said, quoting best-selling author Thomas Friedman.
"In North America, Britney Spears is Britney Spears."
He predicted China and India - which comprise one-third of the world's population - will vault upward in a race for top jobs in research-based industries. Canadians need to start developing learning skills before they get into formal schools, he added.
"Today we don't just want our children to succeed in school. We need them to."
The Liberal government has promised $5 billion over five years for new provincially run, low-fee day care programs and is in the process of striking funding deals with the provinces.
Six provinces - Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Alberta - have already signed on. Quebec's $7-a-day program is the model for the plan.
The Conservatives have dismissed the daycare plan as a potential bureaucratic boondoggle.
Martin's proposal for $5 billion over five years will not even come close to covering the cost of a Quebec-style program, they say.
They also contend that for all the Liberal talk about education, the nation's post-secondary institutions are chronically under-funded while students are buried under a mountain of tuition-related debt.
Tories say the daycare cash should simply be turned over to parents.
"I really don't think we need the Liberals telling us what we need to do to raise our children," said Tory critic Carol Skelton.
"I know lots of little children that read before they go to school and are very outgoing and have had the very best care from a stay-at-home mom. And grandmas, too."
Scandinavian countries have large government day-care programs similar to the one Canada is creating. But the taxes in Nordic countries also hover around the 50-per-cent mark of GDP - compared with under 40 per cent in Canada.
Martin also said Tuesday that the federal government would like to cut taxes while improving social programs.
Well it all sounds nice enough but with Martin there never seems to be any follow-through. Maybe there will be this time, but I won't be holding my breath.
Canadaka @ Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:43 pm
why do you people always have to turn topics into shit shows, i bet none of you even watched the speech. I wanted to hear peoples opionions of the speech, not your typical remarks..... GAWWWWWWWWWD
ShepherdsDog @ Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:00 am
You are correct in assuming that I haven't watched the speech, seeing as CBC is on strike and not broadcast over here to begin with. But after you hear enough political speeches, you learn that it's all a load of crap. It's all rhetoric and nothing else but. Mr. Martin made a far better Finance Minister than he has Prime Minister. If he wants a proper vision for all of Canada he needs to visit his optician because he's definitely not seeing things clearly now.
Streaker @ Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:11 am
Okay in fairness I think the speech - what I've read of it in the article above - is a good one. Martin may not be the greatest public orator but the content of his speeches is usually okay, if a little vague at times.
The national daycare idea is an interesting one; I'm a little surprised that Martin is making this proposal... Even if he is sincere about this it might be difficult for him to pull it off given his minority government.
hwacker @ Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:12 am
National daycare is a load of crap, why should i pay for somebody to look after other people's kid’s?
If you have a kid(s) take care of it, damn if you can't afford it use the second option the Liberals give you, Abortion.
After the gun registry can you imagine what a union babysitter will cost.
ShepherdsDog @ Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:28 am
If the tax burden wasn't so harsh on middle class families, then a parent would be able to afford to stay home and raise their own children, like they did once upon a time. This would negate the need for this type program.
All that's going to happen is an entire new bureaucracy is going to be created for the administration of this program and eat up more tax dollars, resulting in increased taxes to cover the funding. Then you'll have the funds that were to be allocated for some program for the children being gobbled up by some consultant to the assistant of the deputy administrator of the study group that was formed to determine if the department needs more cosultants for the assistant secretary to the administrative assistant of the deputy director of the .............. ad infinitium ad nauseum.
hwacker @ Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:41 am
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
If the tax burden wasn't so harsh on middle class families, then a parent would be able to afford to stay home and raise their own children, like they did once upon a time. This would negate the need for this type program.
All that's going to happen is an entire new bureaucracy is going to be created for the administration of this program and eat up more tax dollars, resulting in increased taxes to cover the funding. Then you'll have the funds that were to be allocated for some program for the children being gobbled up by some consultant to the assistant of the deputy administrator of the study group that was formed to determine if the department needs more cosultants for the assistant secretary to the administrative assistant of the deputy director of the .............. ad infinitium ad nauseum.
All that's going to happen is an entire new bureaucracy is going to be created for the administration of this program and eat up more tax dollars, resulting in increased taxes to cover the funding. Then you'll have the funds that were to be allocated for some program for the children being gobbled up by some consultant to the assistant of the deputy administrator of the study group that was formed to determine if the department needs more cosultants for the assistant secretary to the administrative assistant of the deputy director of the .............. ad infinitium ad nauseum.
The Liberals don't want the family like it was when we grew up; they want the most people in the workforce possible (more people paying taxes so they can play). People pay way too much in taxes but they would rather listen to the Liberals spew about new programs here and new programs there, what they (sheeple) fail to realize is social programs cost more in taxes, so they have to work more to get the same amount home. Keep voting these crooks in you’ll soon figure out that your working for the government even though your cheque doesn't say so.
And these Liberal voters think they are educated.
DerbyX @ Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:00 am
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
If the tax burden wasn't so harsh on middle class families, then a parent would be able to afford to stay home and raise their own children, like they did once upon a time. This would negate the need for this type program.
All that's going to happen is an entire new bureaucracy is going to be created for the administration of this program and eat up more tax dollars, resulting in increased taxes to cover the funding. Then you'll have the funds that were to be allocated for some program for the children being gobbled up by some consultant to the assistant of the deputy administrator of the study group that was formed to determine if the department needs more cosultants for the assistant secretary to the administrative assistant of the deputy director of the .............. ad infinitium ad nauseum.
All that's going to happen is an entire new bureaucracy is going to be created for the administration of this program and eat up more tax dollars, resulting in increased taxes to cover the funding. Then you'll have the funds that were to be allocated for some program for the children being gobbled up by some consultant to the assistant of the deputy administrator of the study group that was formed to determine if the department needs more cosultants for the assistant secretary to the administrative assistant of the deputy director of the .............. ad infinitium ad nauseum.
The tax study they did proved that the rich were paying more then their fair share in taxes. A comparison of Canada to the other western countries shows us at the same level or lower. We only suffer from comparison to the US. Your tut-tutting a social program that a majority of Canadians want in favour of just giving them tax credits so one parent could stay home. I'd rather have the social program. The days of the father bring home the money and the mother at home with the rug-rats are a bygone era and should be. Today women should get the opportunity for a career just as men do. The best idea would be parenting co-ops but our society just isn't geared to that.
Robair @ Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:09 am
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
All that's going to happen is an entire new bureaucracy is going to be created for the administration of this program and eat up more tax dollars, resulting in increased taxes to cover the funding. Then you'll have the funds that were to be allocated for some program for the children being gobbled up by some consultant to the assistant of the deputy administrator of the study group that was formed to determine if the department needs more cosultants for the assistant secretary to the administrative assistant of the deputy director of the .............. ad infinitium ad nauseum.
Exactly.
Where is this money coming from? Why is health care and our millitary cronically underfunded if there's money for a government funded babysittng program??
National daycare will make us more compedative with china?
ShepherdsDog @ Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:16 am
What makes you think it should be the mother who has to stay home? There are dads out there who would likely love to be the primary caregiver if they knew they could afford it. There is too much government involvement in our lives as it is. Put the money back into the parents pockets and allow them to decide how they want their children raised, rather than the state deciding how they are to be raised.
hwacker @ Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:22 am
Typical Lefty retort “And these Liberal voters think they are educated”
$1:
The days of the father bring home the money and the mother at home with the rug-rats are a bygone era and should be
And who are you to say that?
$1:
The best idea would be parenting co-ops but our society just isn't geared to that.
What’s that, ½ time parents, or ½ time workers. Unbelievable
$1:
Majority of Canadians
Same as the majority in favor for SSM eh, another Unbelievable
Get to work, Martini needs a new ship, who are you to refuse him his chance to rule his empire.
I can believe that some people think 60% tax is not enough, if it’s not what is, 80% 90%, can you say bitch for the government?
What’s more scary is some feel the government should control every thing you do in this life, it’s like somebody stole their brain and they can’t function without the governments input.
“And these Liberal voters think they are educated”
“And these Liberal voters are brainwashed”
DerbyX @ Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:22 am
Robair Robair:
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
All that's going to happen is an entire new bureaucracy is going to be created for the administration of this program and eat up more tax dollars, resulting in increased taxes to cover the funding. Then you'll have the funds that were to be allocated for some program for the children being gobbled up by some consultant to the assistant of the deputy administrator of the study group that was formed to determine if the department needs more cosultants for the assistant secretary to the administrative assistant of the deputy director of the .............. ad infinitium ad nauseum.
Exactly.
Where is this money coming from? Why is health care and our millitary cronically underfunded if there's money for a government funded babysittng program??
National daycare will make us more compedative with china?
We do have the money to re-energize our military, invest more in heathcare and have a nationally run daycare program. That money is in our yearly 6-10 billion surplus. The Liberals have wisely paid down our debt within for the last few years or so. Imagine all the happy people if they just chopped taxes to eliminate that surplus and ran a large military as well as all those social programs we love so much. They would be heroes until we remembered the fact that we would be going deeper & deeper in debt until it bankrupted us (like the PC gov't nearly did). Thats what the US is doing right now, going deeper and deeper in debt. Canada hasn't got the economy or economic clout to handle a massive debt. Thats why they budgetted for a surplus each year, in order to pay down the debt and just like a person who has maxed out his credit cards it takes time to pay it off. Every year we pay down the debt by 5 billion or so means more money next year and it grows exponentially as the interest we pay gets smaller and the surpluses get larger. I would like to see a few more years of large debt reduction but understand thats its probably time for the liberals to make only the minimum payment and open up the purse strings for Canada.