Oilsands companies currently use 20 billion litres of groundwater a year to get the bitumen out of the ground and process it. They are licensed to use 75 billion litres a year, and as more projects come onstream, groundwater use will escalate.

Yet the Alberta government doesn't have a good inventory of the province's groundwater. Surely it's reckless to proceed with commitments to oilsands companies without having a clear understanding of the precious water resource we're giving to them.

When one of the most right-wing publications on the planet comes to the defence of nature, you know something's rotten at the Alberta Legislature.    Not to mention it's big trouble for Stephen Harper, who's dedicated to destroying the Kyoto Accord and for whom the NP is his official organ in everything but name.

To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.

• This is the last year of a three-year season ticket special that owner Bob Young -- the software billionaire who built Red Hat -- put in to get people to go back to Ivor Wynne Stadium.   After showing so much promise in 2004, the Cats tanked in 2005 and are flailing this year.   Anyone want to speculate how many of those multi-year holders will put down deposits for even one season in 2007?   Not many, I guess.
• It's not a coaching problem.   Greg Marshall was having problems, and so is Ron Lancaster.   And firing receiver Craig Yeast won't do much either, because he's just a sympton of a much wider problem.   The team sucks, period.   They don't play as a team, but as all-for-myself yahoos.    How many times do we need to say this:   There is no "I" or "me" in team.

To get people into the seats, the HSR -- the local transit authority -- now even offers free rides to and from the game for ticket holders; a bonus for people who don't want to pay extortion parking fees in private driveways to get to the only stadium in the CFL without access to a real parking lot.    But why would I want to ride the buses only to see a bunch of first-class losers who think of nothing of cashing a paycheck to play like jerks?

I've got better ways to spend my cash.    Like the theatre.   I'd rather stimulate my mind, then get it fried by the current group of weirdos who dare to wear the Black and Gold.

To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.

• The creation of the state of Israel.
• The taking of the Holy Sites of Jerusalem in 1967.
• The Yom Kippur War.
• The Camp David Accords.
• The 1982 campaign against Lebanon.
• The First Gulf War.
• 9/11.
• The Second Gulf War.

• The IDF "accidentally" bombed a UN position in Southern Lebanon, killing at least three observers, including one Canadian, even though Canada is technically not part of the mission.    There's no doubt UNIFIL has been a total joke and their mandate should have been changed to peacemaking instead of just peacekeeping.   There's a strong argument that NATO should be taking over the job, just as they did in the former Yugoslavia when the UN also fucked it up.    They couldn't do any worse -- and given that Hezbollah and the rebel Taliban (in Afghanistan) are of the same terrorist, anti-Semitic and misogynist ilk, one might find in a force with teeth someone who could at least have a fighting chance of finishing off at least one of them.
• Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki made some rather bizarre comments that labelled Israel's attacks on Lebanon "aggression" and also seemed to support Hezbollah.    In response, several Democratic officials, including House Leader Nancy Pelosi, are saying they'll boycott Maliki's address to Congress today.    An argument can be made that the current Israeli campaign is anything but measured; but it was Hezbollah that fired the first shot when they kidnapped two soldiers.   If the purpose of getting democracy in Iraq was to have created another state dedicated to the destruction of Israel, then there should be trade sanctions against Iraq -- and its leader is certainly not entitled to address any foreign legislature.
• Finally, the Dalai Lama will formally receive an honourary Canadian citizenship today, something which Parliament granted in a resolution last month and that has been granted to only two other people -- Nelson Mandela and Raoul Wallenberg.    Long overdue, in my opinion; and any time we actually get to spit in the faces of the Butchers of Tiannamen Square, it's a good thing.

To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.

• Making certain provisions of the law apply to all the states, not just the South;
• Stripping the Department of Justice of their signing off rights on redistricting plans;
• Ending multilingual ballots; and
• Extending the law for only 10 years, not 25.

However symbolic, the VRA is what gives people in the States the right to vote.   There is actually nothing in the Constitution that says Americans have the right to vote -- it only says the vote can't be denied based on one's race, sex, inability to pay taxes or having reached the age of eighteen.   However, it is well known that states in both the north and the south have used every trick in the book over the decades to deny blacks and other visible minorities, as well as the poor, the privilege of voting.    In the modern age, where it's very easy to rig voting machines to ensure a perpetual Republican majority, it's an even more serious issue.

At least for once, however, both parties got it right and told the extremists to stuff it.   The VRA is still a necessary safeguard and still very much needed.

Here in Canada, where ballots are counted by hand, it may not mean much; except for the fact that there's been an effort for the last few election cycles to reach out to homeless people, seniors in nursing homes and even prisoners to get them to vote.   If Stephen Harper is thinking about denying the vote to any of those groups -- and you can be sure those in the so-called "religious" right would love to give the vote only to the wealthy and property owners and only men too; and putting pressure on him to do so behind closed doors  -- he's going to have a revolution on his hands.

To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.

• One, the venue kept changing as more and more people signed up.    There was a real nice facility in Burlington that got an upgrade, but then the fire department there said they couldn't handle the crowd control.   So it was moved to where it was last night with little more than a week to deadline time (a bit suprising, since convention space is often booked months in advance); but I do have to wonder about the final choice.    Maybe it's the way it was set up, but it seemed awfully loud in there.
• Two, it's often said that someone at a speed dating event knows if the opposite number is dateable material within the first three to five seconds.    For some in my rotation, that was definitely true.   But others, I found I didn't check yes or no until I had sat with two more women -- while the rest, I made my pick at about the midway point.
• Three, there was a bit of an afterparty, but after doing some walkarounds I found some of the women who had sparked my interest had already left and some of the rest were perhaps looking the other way.   Don't know what to read of it one way or the other, but I was out the door by about 10 pm.

Would I do this again?   Yes, I would.   But I would prefer a much more controlled environment rather than the rather raucous affair from last night.   And three minutes just isn't enough time.    I would go with five minutes; and maybe 30 women at most.

Have any of you tried speed dating?   Did it lead to any dates -- good or bad?   And what advice would you give a guy who's essentially meeting someone on a blind date; presuming some dates do come out of this?    I'd appreciate your feedback.

To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.

• One, because it is taxable, the government will get some or all of it back at the rear end.    Even if one spouse's income is zero, his or her partner will have to reduce his or her spousal exemption by an equal amount  to the payout -- $1200.   Other amounts, including the GST credit and the remaining tax-free portion of the child benefit, will also be clawed back.
• Two, both parents must now must be Canadian citizens to get the money.    The old credit was available to all legal residents in Canada ... citizens, permanent aliens and legal refugees.    Tens of thousands of families have been cut off.
• Three, the old credit was available to kids under seven.   The new one, to under sixes.    This is so wrong -- Grades One and Two are probably the most expensive years for parents, other than right after birth.

Maybe it's just me, or the fact I don't have kids.    But if the shoes were reversed, I suspect the government would see just how wrong their priorities are.    However, I am somewhat heartened by the fact that many immigrant communities in this country Canada are seeing Team Harper for what they are, especially after giving their unequivocal support for Israel and completely dismissing the aspiration of the vast majority of Arabs in the region who just want peace once and for all.

I don't think it'll be child care -- or the lack of it -- that will be the Harper government's downfall.    It's their poor planning and thought on foreign policy; and speaking with a voice that doesn't speak for Canadians.   They blew it on dead soldiers, they blew it on softwood lumber, and now they've blown it on the Middle East.   Three strikes ... you know the rest.

To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.

Thank you for your electronic message, which was forwarded to me by the office of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, concerning child care policy for Canadian families.  Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying.

 

The Government of Canada recognizes that families are the building blocks of a society and that child care is a priority for Canadian families.  We are committed to providing parents with resources to help balance work and family life, and letting them choose what is best for their children.  Budget 2006 set out the two main elements of Canada’s Universal Child Care Plan.  The aim of our plan is to support all parents of young children, whether they work in the paid labour force or stay at home with their children, or live in a small town, rural community or large urban area.  I am pleased to take this opportunity to provide you with information on Canada’s Universal Child Care Plan, and to invite you to visit www.universalchildcare.ca, to explore the plan in more detail.

 

The Universal Child Care Benefit came into effect on July 1, 2006.  It provides $100 per month for each child under six, taxable in the hands of the spouse with the lower income.  All families with young children benefit, regardless of income or the type of child care they choose.  The benefit puts choice for child care where it belongs—in the hands of parents—and allows them to choose the option that best suits their family’s needs.  This new benefit provides Canadian families with direct financial assistance in addition to the Canada Child Tax Benefit, National Child Benefit Supplement and Child Care Expense Deduction.

 

The Government will also help Canadian parents to better balance child care and work responsibilities.  The budget allocates $250 million per year, beginning in 2007–2008, to support the creation of up to 25,000 new child care spaces each year.  In the coming months, I will consult with parents, employers, community and non-profit organizations, and the provinces and territories on the Child Care Spaces Initiative.  The key to this initiative’s success will be to ensure flexibility in its design, so that new spaces meet the needs of all families, regardless of where they live or their hours of work.  New spaces could include workplace-based child care centres in big cities, as well as more flexible spaces that work for families in small towns and rural areas, or for parents who work non-traditional hours, outside the standard nine-to-five working day. 

 

Canada’s Universal Child Care Plan represents a new approach to child care that respects the role of parents in determining how best to care for their children and recognizes the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments for delivering child care services.  That is why we are phasing out the 2005 agreements on early learning and child care that were signed with three provinces.  As a transitional measure, we are providing funding to all provinces and territories for the 2006–2007 fiscal year, ending March 31, 2007, at the level set out in the 2005 budget:  a total of $650 million dollars is allocated to all provincial and territorial governments, on an equal per capita basis.  This is in addition to amounts that we transfer to the provinces and territories for early childhood development, including child care ($500 million in 2006–2007), and early learning and child care ($300 million in 2006–2007). 

 

Thank you for sharing your views.  I appreciate having had the opportunity to share details of Canada’s Universal Child Care Plan. 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

 

 

The Hon. Diane Finley, P.C., M.P.

Minister of Human Resources and Social Development

 

To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.