CBC.ca reports the phasing out deadline as March 31, 2007. A shade longer than 7 weeks, if accurate.

Why support a program you were elected to get rid off? This is the second time you've brought this up in a week, so I assume it's really bugging you somehow that Harper's not continuing the program brought in by a different minority government that was thrown out by the voters. If Harper makes a "50-year pledge" to the provinces with his "nucon" policiers, are all future governments bound to commit that pledge also? I could see that sort of thing becoming ... unwieldy in the long run!

I doubt there's anyone particular bothered by Harper shutting down the existing program that doesn't already detest Harper. And I'd be wary about making generalizations of what Quebec does or does not want: the election certainly has tipped that apple cart over.

<p>
Here's CBC's report:
<blockquote>
He also said the current national child-care funding deal with the provinces would be phased out by March 31, 2007.
</blockquote>

This the second place I've seen this quote from The Star. Pretty typical reporting from that inky toilet paper: nominally true and absolutely wrong, quoted for political "<i>Day of Rage</i>™" type of effect.

Hang on. Have a look at what Don found out. For the second time in a week, I have pointed out Don's masterful and accurate use of the internet. You will see that the Saskatchewan agreement in fact only goes to March 2006. You think Harper is going to renegotiate for another year? I think it may be that Don is correct and the CBC is the one who missed the implication. I am merely a mouthpiece for Don, you know.<p>And thanks for warning me not to underestimate the drive for new social reconstruction of Quebec that has been bought by earning, what, 1/4 of the votes there. How nutty was that to miss that wave o'change. But nice to see that the new social theorists are out and about like we knew they would be.

It's a huge change in Quebec, though you may not like the implications. A drop out of federalist support for the Liberals switching to the Conservatives is a big deal and unprecedented. You can laugh at the 25% but that's the level where even small increases in votes translates into big numbers of seats.

But since we're on the subject of 25%, it's funny how the NDP styles themselves as the social voice of Canada, the voice of parents and so forth with a smaller number. I guess it's the quality of the voter that makes the difference in this case.

It's all about the effective use of the voice you are given and the NDP have been the kings at it. If 25% of Quebecers can convince the most socialist population in the land to become libertarians, more power to you. Fat chance, I say. But I specialize in being wrong.<p>The math still stands. Don + Star = 31 March 2006.

So you think the CPC are libertarians then? Interesting.

bq. He said he will end the current national child-care funding deal with the <b>provinces</b> effective March 31.

Which other province then, since this is phrased in the plural? The purpose of this statement is deceit, pure and simple.

According to my master, Don, all the agreements look pretty much the same in terms of their start and end date and all indicate that to go into 2006/2007 requiries renewed negotiation. Will Harper start a negotiation to extend a policy he does not support even if he did not exactly run forcefull against it?<p>I never said I think the CPC are libertarians. I think a lot of folk are taking the vote in Quebec to mean there is a sea change and that there is a new sense of individual rights and obligations there. That is rubbish. It was a throw the federalist bums out vote plus a swing vote by swingers who will swing again. No great social change.

<blockquote>
It was a throw the federalist bums out vote plus a swing vote by swingers who will swing again. No great social change.
</blockquote>

Well, this is where you an I differ in opinion: I think the Federalist vote is truely in play in Quebec, which is a sea of change in Canadian politics. I shall join you at GenX @ 50 in ten years to see who is correct on this matter.

Well, I am not so far away from you on that as I was responding to the libertarian basis for it not the Federalist one. There may be a Federalist move but not a anti-socialism Federalist change.