luvacuppajoe

The band has a legal case, there's no doubt. Ottawa had a fudiciary responsibility to give fair market value for the timber rights and to "invest" 90% of the sale in a trust account. It's been established that they were underpaid so it only follows that they should be compensated for lost revenues. The only question is how much, given that the archived records do not clearly show how far back compound interest was to be paid. Keep in mind that this is the band's lawyer saying "billions" and I highly doubt they'll see that much. The burden of proof is on the band to show that compound interest would have been paid from day one and so far they've been unable to do that. I'm unclear which lands he is referring to when he says "returned". I suppose the timber sale land itself could be returned in lieu of cash if its present value is worth a portion of their award. He could also mean other lands that could be used as part of the compensation package and/or a future treaty settlement. No doubt though, the reward will be substantial enough that other bands across the country will find it beneficial to start going over their own historical records in hopes of finding similar shortcomings.

I suspect you are right. The $100 a month for childcare was never popular to begin with and in reality is not making a significant difference to most, if anyone. On the whole, women will vote (either for or against) where it concerns their families on a rather personal basis. I suspect also that Harper is still suffering the hangover of the "scary, dead fish eyes" persona who might secretly bring back an abortion ban, among other things. The recent death penalty issue is a case in point, in particular is how it was introduced without parliamentary debate. The thinking will be, if he can do that now what will he do with a majority? He's not connecting with women through economic or foreign policies, he needs to switch gears between now and the next election call and head for home, so to speak...and I'm sure he will have to revisit some policy issues in the process.

I've seen the ads on the Conservatives' website, and I have to admit I'm a bit worried. Dion comes off looking so weak and confused (Mr. Dithers 2.0) that I can see him picking up the sympathy vote. The Liberals' abstentions as of late are going to add even more ammo to the Tories' ad campaigns once the big guns come out. Those ones will practically write themselves. But I agree with Michael Bluth and Scott, Harper's learned his lesson in cockiness over polling numbers, he's not going to make that mistake again no matter where his numbers go.

There's plenty more where that came from. Are they all one-sided rhetoric?

Those costs could conceivably be lowered through amended government policy. I think the cost of methadone maintenace is considerably higher than $30 a month, or $360 per year. Treatment for Ontario correctional inmates apparently ran at about $10,000 per year each in 2000. More recently, The College of Family Physicians of Canada put the figure at $5,000 - $6,000 a year for community based programs and $22,000 for NAOMI (North American Opiate Medication Initiative) which is the free heroin program in Vancouver and Montreal.

"Providing the Correctional Service of Canada with $102 million over two years to begin updating its infrastructure, equipment and programming, pending the results of a panel review ." "A new National Anti-Drug Strategy with $64 million over two years to crack down on gangs, combat illicit drug production such as grow-ops and methamphetamine labs, prevent illicit drug use and treat illicit drug dependency." "Harper noted during his announcement that two-thirds of the funding will go to prevention and treatment for addicts and to promotional campaigns to keep people away from drugs." Source Providing an additional $6 million per year to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to protect children from sexual exploitation and trafficking. Taking action to crack down on white-collar crime by appointing a senior expert advisor to the RCMP to help develop and guide the implementation of a plan to improve the effectiveness of the Integrated Market Enforcement Teams. Improving front-end screening of first-time firearms licence applicants with $14 million over two years. Investing $80 million over two years to make the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s operations more effective. Providing $10 million over the next two years to support the Canadian Police Research Centre’s work in science and technology in policing and public safety. (Support) children by investing an additional $6 million per year to combat sexual exploitation and trafficking. (Support) seniors by expanding the New Horizons for Seniors program by $10 million per year to combat elder abuse and fraud, and to expand capital assistance for community buildings, equipment and furnishings. (Support) women by providing $10 million per year to Status of Women Canada towards real action in key areas such as combatting violence against women and girls. (Support) aboriginal Canadians by taking action to provide training and job opportunities for Aboriginal Canadians, helping First Nations members own their own homes, improving the quality of drinking water and enhancing the Aboriginal Justice Strategy. Budget 2007 These initiatives were all announced back in March.

I'm not going anywhere. I meant "quit" as in, quitting smoking pot.

Cool. I'd like to take you up on that offer one day.

Why would the Liberals vote against tax cuts after having just criticized the Tories for having a larger than expected surplus (aka overtaxing Canadians)? How would the Liberals expect any voter support for that stance, especially after all the hype about how they cut the lowest tax bracket only to have the Tories raise it again? The only ones gunning for an election are the media.

You'll have to pardon me for not being able to follow your train of thought, when only half of your argument made it from your brain to your keyboard. I haven't even posted on the entire board a dozen times yet...but thanks for reminding me why I quit.

Right, and you know that because you know the history of every pot smoker out there I assume. Not much of a drinker, no. Certainly not in alcoholic territory. I wouldn't know, as I never claimed that death was a consequence of my pot use. Where are the memory cells might be a more apt question. I don't know who you're talking to here, I never claimed to have used for 40 years, though that hasn't stopped my blood pressure and cholesterol from being right on target either. I would like to see personal use decriminalized, legalized, whatever...and you are free to speak for yourself that you've seen no ill effects, but don't presume to speak for everyone.

I don't see the Tories itching for an election. Despite the polls showing them flirting into majority territory I don't believe Harper's yet comfortable with that, knowing the public's distaste for another election (especially in vote-weary Ontario) would likely contribute to some punitive backlash. Speaking of Ontario, I doubt too that Harper is very willing to march in fresh on the heels of a Tory loss in that coveted and vote-rich province. He knows Dion's weakness and he's perfectly willing to take advantage of it while he bides his time, and quite successfully by the looks of it. With Dion's demonstrated comfort in selling his soul to the devil, Harper doesn't need an imminent election. You don't pull punches when you have your opponent on the ropes.

Purely anecdotal, but as a former long-time pot smoker, I can attest that it very much impaired my judgement, particularly with perceptions of time and space, short term memory and logical functions. Of course I never believed that, at the time.

Sometimes. Suppression of ovulation is only one of the ways in which it's designed to work. It also changed the cervical mucous to make it more inhospitable to sperm. The third is that it changes the uterine lining, making it thinner so that implantation of the egg, should fertilization occur is more difficult. Then again, sometimes all 3 methods fail and pregnancy results anyway.

That's only one possibility. The morning after pill is designed to work in one of three ways, depending on how soon it's taken and at what point of her cycle a woman is in. The makers of this pill describe the process as follows: There are 2 pills in the pack. One should be taken immediately (within 72 hours of unprotected sex), and the second, 12 hours later. plan B is more effective the sooner you take it. plan B does 1 of 3 things: It temporarily stops the release of an egg from the ovary; It prevents fertilization; or It prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. Plan B website An egg is viable for up to 24 hours once inside the fallopian tube, sperm for about 48 -- conception is entirely possible well within the 72 hour timeframe of Plan B. It doesn't always act as an abortificant, but it can, as it was designed to. A regular birth control pill is designed to work in exactly the same three ways, albiet in smaller doses, which is why some of the most ardent pro-life doctors won't prescribe The Pill to their patients (although we don't usually hear about them).

The difference between this situation and that affecting the fire of your house or mine is that you and I are not subject to the Indian Act, under which the federal government has a fudiciary responsibility to natives, responsibilities which include providing (among other things) housing. I'm neither defending nor condeming it, just stating that it is what it is -- and will remain until the Indian Act is amended.

The only thing about Norway's policy that surprises me is that they didn't set the quota at an even 50%. I guess they didn't want to appear pushy. I can well envision the day when a government will refuse to grant business licences to men (particularly white men) if the quotas for women and minorities have not yet been filled.

Link