Trump, DNC Set 2020 Sights on Florida

first_imgAs President Trump prepares to officially kick off his 2020 re-election campaign next week in Florida, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez promises an “unprecedented” effort by Democrats to win back the state.Perez appeared at the Florida Democratic Party’s annual Leadership Blue convention and fundraising event during the weekend.Trump is scheduled to appear on June 18 at Orlando’s Amway Center with Vice President Mike Pence to formally announce his campaign for a second term.Former President Barack Obama won Florida by 0.9 percent in his 2012 re-election bid.However, Former Republican Governor Rick Scott won re-election by 1 percent in 2014, and Trump carried the state by 1.2 percent in the 2016 election.That trend continued in 2018, when Scott unseated Democratic U.S. Senator Bill Nelson by 0.12 percent, and Republican Ron DeSantis defeated Democrat Andrew Gillum by 0.4 percent to become Florida’s governor.Perez told the audience that 2020 will be different in Florida, as the DNC  has trained 1,000 organizers across this state as well as six other battleground states.He adds that in Florida, three-quarters of the trainees will be “organizers of color,” and 90 percent will be native Floridians this time around. Perez explains, “What we’re doing differently is we’re talking to voters now, we’re registering voters now” statewide, rather than only in swing counties and Democratic strongholds.In addition, “We’re leading with our values and telling a very, very clear story of the contrast between what we’re fighting for and what this president is doing. He has a track record now — didn’t have a track record four years ago.”Specifically, Perez says that Florida voters should be paying attention to Trump’s efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and what Perez referred to as the President’s “shameful” treatment of Puerto Rico after Hurricanes Irma and Maria two years ago.With most of the Democratic presidential candidates at an event in Iowa, Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz, of Fort Walton Beach, says of the Florida event, “You’ve got a Democratic presidential candidate on every street corner in Iowa and, hey, they’ve got Kyrsten Sinema in Florida.”Gaetz adds, “Florida Republicans are bringing the President of the United States on June 18 to kick off his national campaign in Florida. Democrats brought Tom Perez with a whiny message about voter suppression and a senator Floridians have never heard of.”Miramar mayor and presidential candidate Wayne Messam was in attendance. The spouses of candidates Kamala Harris, John Delaney and Eric Swalwell also spoke at the event.Perez said the lack of presidential candidates at the event was not an issue, and, “I wouldn’t read anything into that. This is a marathon and they’re going to be spending a lot of time here in Florida. Every candidate understands the importance of Florida. We understand the importance of Florida.”last_img read more

Kuo’s positive test likely a `non-issue’

first_imgA Major League Baseball official said the commissioner’s office is looking into the matter. But it appears unlikely that Kuo would face punishment by MLB for failing a drug test in a competition that took place separately from, and independently of, MLB. “Kuo did not take anything illegal or against major-league drug policy,” Chang said. Kuo did not travel with the team for Monday’s Grapefruit League game, but he did tell the AP back in Vero Beach that, “I just play baseball. I didn’t take anything.” “We have spoken with Kuo and his agent, and we are aware that Major League Baseball is looking into this issue,” said the Dodgers in a statement. “Given Kuo’s explanation that this was simply cold medicine, we consider it a non-issue unless new developments come to light.” Kevin Chen, secretary general of CTOC, told the Associated Press that the situation is “completely innocent.” Alan Chang, Kuo’s agent, said his client took an herbal medicine that “could cause the positive test result.” Chang wasn’t sure whether the medicine actually contained ephedra or another substance that might mimick ephedra in a drug test. FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – Dodgers pitcher Hong-Chih Kuo, who pitched five innings to help his native Chinese Taipei to victory in the first round of the Asian Games in Qatar, tested positive for the banned substance ephedra before that event. But it doesn’t appear Kuo intentionally ingested the substance, nor does it appear the test will create a problem for either Kuo or the Dodgers. A Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee official told the Associated Press that Kuo and two other Taiwanese players who tested positive for ephedra had ingested the substance innocently through either cold or pain medication. center_img 160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set!last_img read more

Cold Castles: Bad Climate for Imperial Science

first_imgTo some people, the world would be a better place if ruled by scientists.  They could be like a benevolent oligarchy, employing the knowledge gained by the scientific method for the good of the people.  A recent editorial might shake that belief.    In Nature News this week,1 Daniel Sarewitz had some sobering thoughts for scientists who think their views should direct national policy.  The context was the Climategate scandal (02/06/2010).  He used the incident to call attention to inherent weaknesses in the ability of science to rule the people. Science has been called on to do something beyond its purview: not just improve people’s understanding of the world, but compel people to act in a particular way.  For nearly twenty years, researchers, policy-makers and activists have claimed that climate science requires a global policy agenda of top-down, United-Nations-sponsored international agreements; targets and timetables for emissions reductions; and the creation of carbon markets….    The idea that a mounting weight of scientific evidence would gradually overwhelm ideological opposition to the climate policy regime is not just false but backwards.  Science is much more pliable and permissive than deeply held beliefs about how the world should work.  Scientific understanding of the complex, coupled ocean?atmosphere?society system is always incomplete, and gives the competing sides plenty of support for their pre-existing political preferences – as well as plenty to hide behind in claiming that those preferences are supported by science.  Science can decisively support policy only after fundamental political differences have been resolved.    The crucial point here is that no amount of reform of the IPCC, or rooting out of bad science – or of scientists behaving badly – will begin to correct the flaws in the dominant approach to climate policy.  Rehabilitation of climate policy is a matter not of getting the science right, but of getting the politics right.Science is the handmaiden of politics, not its queen.  That appears to be what Sarewitz is saying.  Because scientific understanding of complex issues is always incomplete, it will never be able to overwhelm the opposition by the sheer weight of evidence.  Whatever party wins can use “science” to support their policies.  The picture of science Sarewitz just painted is hugely deflating to the presumptive authority and epistemic privilege normally granted to scientists by the public, but the scientists did it to themselves: “the public legitimacy of climate science [is] under assault” from recent revelations.  Along with it, distrust of “political” science is growing: “To those who already distrust climate science because it is used to justify action that they deem ideologically repugnant, such revelations make it look as though the science is systematically, if not congenitally, biased in one direction.”    The Climategate scandal created a “poisoned political climate,” Sarewitz said, that deepened the divide between conservatives, who “typically distrust international governance regimes and the United Nations in particular” and “hate government programmes that demand major wealth transfers,” and liberals, who have an “equally na?ve and idealized version of how the vaunted scientific consensus on anthropogenic warming demanded action consistent with their ideological preferences.”  Liberals “counted on science to deliver progressively greater certainty about the reality and consequences of climate change, an approach embodied in former US vice-president Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth.”  The unraveling of that certainty in recent months has made “climate rhetoric” take on an increasingly insistent and hysterical tone” like comparing future catastrophes to the Holocaust.  That must change.  Science is incapable of offering such certainty, Sarewitz argued.  He noted how quickly the IPCC incorporated outlandish claims about Himalayan glacier retreat into their report, but then said, “One can hardly imagine that equally bad data tending in the other direction – for example, saying that the glaciers were not retreating – would have made it into the report.”  Thus, he undercut the assumed objectivity of science.    Sarewitz appears to favor the liberal position on climate science; he ended by saying that “the imperfect science we already have will turn out to be plenty good enough to support action.”  Even so, he had some advice for conservatives and liberals.  “With the public legitimacy of climate science under assault, political progress in the United States may now depend on the willingness of thoughtful conservatives to chart a better way forward,” he said.  “But liberals and moderates must meanwhile abandon the claim that the science supports only their way of doing things.”    Sarewitz spoke half the time about climate science and half about science in general, suggesting he felt the lessons from Climategate can be generalized: “Science carried out in the context of divisive politics cannot but be influenced by that politics, as the CRU e-mails so starkly showed.”  It appears, therefore, that his themes in the editorial can be generalized to four lessons for science and politics: (1) Science does not belong to one political persuasion.  (2) Science is pliable to deeply-held world views and can be used to support either position.  (3) Because the conclusions of science on complex issues are always uncertain, science cannot convince an opposition on the weight of evidence.  (4) Politics should lead science, not the other way around. 1.  Daniel Sarewitz, “World view: Curing climate backlash,” Nature 464, 28 (2010); doi:10.1038/464028a.Darwinians may get upset if we apply these lessons to the creation-evolution controversy, but consider the similarities.  Typically, the very same people who have staunchly asserted that the science supporting AGW is unassailable say the same thing about evolution.  The same people are typically leftists and atheists.  The same people assume the science is on their side.  And the same people have a propensity to want to impose their one-party rule on all the people using “science” as a weapon.     So let’s apply the Sarewitz themes to the question of whether schools should be DODO (Darwin-Only, Darwin-Only): (1) Science does not belong to the Darwin Party.  There is plenty of evidence debunking Darwinism and supporting intelligent design.  Students should have a right to hear this evidence.  (2) Because science is pliable, the cases of the Darwin Party bending the rules of science, cherry-picking the data, and forcing evidence to an atheistic, secularist, progressivist political agenda should be exposed.  Those who oppose their views should be given the chance to criticize this behavior in public.  (3) The Darwin Party has failed to convince their opposition for 150 years.  If anything, the opposition is stronger today than it ever has been.  The opposition should be allowed, therefore, to debate Darwinists in the arenas where it counts: the journals, the universities, the courts, and the school boards.  Scientific institutions should end their one-party rule and accept outspoken critics of Darwinism into their membership.  Journals should print papers and editorials critical of Darwinism. (4) Because politics should lead science, it is perfectly acceptable for a conservative school board to end the DODO rules and order teachers to teach the controversy.  Indeed, that is the only way to prevent one side from co-opting “science” for a political agenda.    Read Daniel Sarewitz’ article with this in mind and see if there is any reason Darwinism should be treated differently in the public square than climate science.  If what he said is correct (and he arguably did not go far enough), Imperial Science has no legitimacy.  It must give way to democracy.*  For more on the connections between Darwinism and climate change, see this Jay Richards blog.(Visited 11 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Drastic Fossil Date Revisions Never Deter Evolutionists

first_imgby Dr Jerry BergmanThe best illustration of dogmatism among evolutionists is seeing how they cling to their beliefs even when fossil dates change radically. Three recent examples from PBS illustrate this fact.Early Precambrian Shells?One PBS NOVA Next article written under the headline “New Fossils Push Back Earliest Single-Celled Skeletons 200 Million Years” claims that “life has been making its own hard parts for at least 810 million years, about 200 million years longer than previously thought.”[i]Credit: Phoebe Cohen, Williams College, via PBSEvolutionists made this statement based on finding biomineralized structures in rocks that date older than they expected. Biomineralization is the process by which living organisms use minerals to harden or stiffen certain tissues, such as bones and teeth. In this case, microfossil skeletons were revealed within a 200-foot-thick section of lime, mudstone, and slate. The microfossils looked very much like they were intelligently designed (see photo), so the researchers concluded that they must not be natural crystals but rather were made by some unknown life form.They believe that the minerals, consisting of a phosphorus compound called hydroxylapatite, functioned as an armor-like casing that was constructed by some now-extinct type of organism. Hydroxylapatite is the main inorganic constituent of both tooth enamel and bone of higher animals, but is not found in single-celled organisms. This is another problem for evolution: what is hydroxylapatite doing in primitive life forms? The old story was that biomineralization in soft-bodied multicellular animals led to the Cambrian explosion, but the evolutionists involved in this discovery were forced by their methods of dating rocks to radically revise their ideas, even when it led to untenable positions and new questions.The new study leaves a few questions unanswered, and poses a few new ones of its own. For one, biomineralization has evolved several different times. This study illustrates how one branch of life gained the ability to make skeletal parts, but there are still several others to puzzle out. And then it blasts open a period of more than 200 million years in which scientists so far have found no evidence of biomineralization, a range of time that Cohen points out is as wide as that between the present day and the dawn of the dinosaurs.Early Modern Humans?Last month on PBS NOVA Next, Robin Kazmier reported on another astonishing claim:“Oldest Known Human Fossils May Push Back Homo sapiens Evolution 100,000 Years.“ Kazmier added that this discovery may force scientists to “change our understanding of prehistory.”[ii] These fossils were estimated to be about 300,000 years old, which is “a full 100,000 years older than the previous oldest fossils” known (see 6/08/17). Evolutionists have so-far uncovered the remains of at least five individual humans plus tools and animal remains. Furthermore, using tomographic X-ray scans and 3-D statistical shape analysis allowed the scientists to determine that the individuals “would have had faces just like modern humans.” This is a problem because some putative primitive human ancestors have been dated much younger! That is why this find forces evolutionists to “change our understanding of prehistory.”Early Eukaryotes?Another report from PBS NOVA Next last year was even more dramatic. In this article, reporter Alison Eck says that “Complex Life May Have Emerged One Billion Years Earlier Than We Thought.” Being off by a billion years is no small error! It illustrates how imprecise these guesstimates are, and how evolutionists will cling to their beliefs despite falsifying evidence. The article opined that for “billions of years, life remained stagnant—stuck in a mode of single-celled simplicity.”[iii] In other words, for some unknown reason evolution stopped occurring for billions of years. What happened to the inexorable force of slow-and-gradual Darwinian change?The authors of the paper in Nature Communications admit that “Fossils of macroscopic eukaryotes are rarely older than the Ediacaran Period (635–541 million years (Myr)), and their interpretation of a billion years earlier remains controversial.”[iv, italics added.] They also admit they discovered fossil evidence of what appear to be multi-celled eukaryotes, organisms that contain organelles such as mitochondria and a nucleus. Such things were not supposed to exist so far back in evolutionary time.The team found unexpected complexity. Fully a third of the 167 samples they identified exhibit what the researchers termed regular cell structure. As is common in evolution, while the team used “these details to claim that the leap from single-celled to multi-celled organisms happened earlier than once thought, some scientists are skeptical,” Eck says. “They argue that these specimens are merely ‘colonies’ of single-celled bacteria.”[v] Perhaps a billion-year error is too much for some evolutionists to swallow. 100 million years is OK. 200 million years (a gap longer than “the present day to the dawn of dinosaurs”) is tolerable. But a billion? No wonder “some scientists are skeptical.” But Nature published it anyway.[i] Will Sullivan. 2017. “New Fossils Push Back Earliest Single-Celled Skeletons 200 Million Years.” PBS NOVA Next, July 6. 2017.[ii] Robin Kazmier. 2017. “Oldest Known Human Fossils May Push Back Homo sapiens Evolution 100,000 Years.” PBS NOVA Next, June 8, 2017.[iii] Allison Eck. 2016.  “Complex Life May Have Emerged One Billion Years Earlier Than We Thought.” PBS Nova Next, May, 18 2016.[iv] Zhu, S. et al. 2016. “Decimetre-scale multicellular eukaryotes from the 1.56-billion-year-old Gaoyuzhuang Formation in North China.” Nature Communications. 7:11500 doi: 10.1038/ncomms11500 7, May 17.[v] Eck, 2016.Dr Jerry Bergman, professor, author and speaker, is a frequent contributor to Creation-Evolution Headlines. See his Author Profile for his previous articles.(Visited 555 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Durban delivers climate breakthrough

first_img11 December 2011It went far into overtime, but the UN climate summit hosted and steered by South Africa finally delivered the deal the world has been waiting for – a clear pathway to a legally binding instrument that will compel all countries, including the biggest polluters, to take action to slow the pace of global warming.The package of agreements making up the “Durban Platform” also include a new commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, the launch of the Green Climate Fund, and the implementation of the agreements made in Cancun, Mexico in 2010.Marathon negotiating sessionThe successful conclusion of the awkwardly named 17th Conference of the Parties (COP 17) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) came after a marathon, often fractious, three-night negotiating session in Durban’s International Convention Centre.It was well after sunrise in the South African coastal city on Sunday that the conference president, Maite Koana-Mashabane, brought the gavel down on the last of the decisions comprising the Durban Platform – to the relief of the remaining bleary-eyed participants.“We have taken crucial steps forward for the common good and the global citizenry today. I believe that what we have achieved in Durban will play a central role in saving tomorrow, today,” said Nkoana-Mashabane, South Africa’s minister of international relations and cooperation.Praise for South Africa’s leadership“I salute the countries who made this agreement,” said UNFCCC executive secretary Christiana Figueres. “They have all laid aside some cherished objectives of their own to meet a common purpose – a long-term solution to climate change.“I sincerely thank the South African presidency, who steered through a long and intense conference to a historic agreement that has met all major issues.”The UNFCCC said in a statement that the countries meeting in Durban had “delivered a breakthrough on the future of the international community’s response to climate change, while recognizing the urgent need to raise their collective level of ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to keep the average global temperature rise below two degrees Celsius.”Pathway to a universal legal agreementFor the first time, governments agreed to adopt a universal legal agreement on climate change – one that includes both rich developed countries like the US as well as developing giants such as China and India – to be decided on not later than 2015 and to come into force by 2020.Work on this would begin immediately under a new group called the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action.Governments, including 35 industrialised countries, also agreed a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol from 1 January 2013 – the current period expires on 31 December 2012.To achieve rapid clarity, parties to the second period will turn their economy-wide targets into quantified emission-limitation or reduction objectives and submit them for review by 1 May 2012.“This is highly significant because the Kyoto Protocol’s accounting rules, mechanisms and markets [will] all remain in action as effective tools to leverage global climate action and as models to inform future agreements,” Figueres said.‘Common but differentiated responsibilities’Also agreed on in Durban was an advanced framework for reporting emission reductions that covers both developed and developing countries while taking into account the principle – something developing countries had been pushing hard for – of “common but differentiated responsibilities” of different countries.In addition to charting the way forward for reducing greenhouse gases in the global context, governments meeting in South Africa agreed the full implementation of the package – agreed to in Cancun, Mexico in 2010 – to help developing nations adapt to and mitigate the worst effect of climate change.“This means that urgent support for the developing world, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable to adapt to climate change, will also be launched on time,” Figueres said.Assistance, funding for developing countriesThe package includes the Green Climate Fund, an Adaptation Committee designed to improve the coordination of adaptation actions on a global scale, and a Technology Mechanism, all of which will become fully operational in 2012.At the same time, the governments “acknowledged the urgent concern that the current sum of pledges to cut emissions both from developed and developing countries is not high enough to keep the global average temperature rise below two degrees Celsius,” the UNFCCC said.“They therefore decided that the UN Climate Change process shall increase ambition to act and will be led by the climate science in the IPCC’s [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s] Fifth Assessment Report and the global Review from 2013-2015.”Figueres said that, while these deadlines still had to be met, “countries, citizens and businesses who have been behind the rising global wave of climate action can now push ahead confidently, knowing that Durban has lit up a broader highway to a low-emission, climate-resilient future.”The next major UN climate summt, COP 18, will take place in Qatar, in close cooperation with the Republic of Korea, from 26 November to 7 December 2012.SAinfo reporterlast_img read more

10 months agoBurnley boss Dyche confirms successful Lennon op

first_imgAbout the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say Burnley boss Dyche confirms successful Lennon opby Paul Vegas10 months agoSend to a friendShare the loveBurnley boss Sean Dyche has confirmed successful surgery for Aaron Lennon.Dyche revealed that Lennon has undergone knee surgery that will keep him out for an unspecified amount of time.Lennon sustained cartilage damage in last Saturday’s 1-0 defeat against former club Tottenham at Wembley.“It’s a tidying up situation. He’s happy with it and the surgeon is happy with it.”Hopefully it will be a straight-forward recovery, albeit some time.” last_img

ExxonMobil Canada selling its 19 stake in the Terra Nova offshore oil

first_imgCALGARY – Exxon Mobil Corp. says its Canadian arm has put up for sale its 19 per cent interest in the Terra Nova offshore oil project 350 kilometres southeast of Newfoundland and Labrador.Spokeswoman Suann Guthrie confirms that the company is marketing its stake after a review of its portfolio to ensure it meets its strategic objectives.She says the decision has no impact on Exxon’s other assets in Canada and adds the company will remain a long-term investor in the province.ExxonMobil Canada is the operator of the $14-billion Hebron offshore oil project off Newfoundland and Labrador, which pumped its first oil in November, and a part owner of the Hibernia offshore project. It operates the Sable offshore natural gas project in Nova Scotia which is being decommissioned due to production declines.Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods said in January the company would invest more than US$50 billion over the next five years to expand its business in the United States, helped by reduced U.S. federal taxes on corporations.Calgary-based Suncor Energy is the operator of Terra Nova with a 38 per cent stake. Production began in 2002.Companies in this story include: (TSX:SU)last_img read more

Quebecs daycare model provides inspiration for provinces to develop their own

first_imgMONTREAL – When it comes to affordable daycare, Quebec’s low-fee program is the envy of many a parent in other parts of Canada.Under the much-vaunted but polarizing program introduced in 1997, the bulk of Quebec parents pay but a fraction of the astronomical amounts their counterparts shell out elsewhere.Some pundits argue the Quebec model is too costly and fails to deliver, but others say the benefits of getting more women into the workforce and improving work-life balance help offset the annual $2.5 billion investment.But how exportable is the made-in-Quebec solution?One political scientist says Quebec’s lesson to other provinces is they should chart their own path and not wait for a federally driven daycare plan as some have in the past.“When the federal government tried to implement a national program, it met a lot of resistance in the different provinces,” said Olivier Jacques, a post-doctoral student at McGill University and one of three authors of a recent study published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy that examined Quebec daycare.“So maybe it’s better that each of the provinces does their own so they can make something sustainable.”In 2005, the Liberals under Paul Martin tried to implement a national childcare program, setting aside $5 billion and signing on with all 10 provinces before losing power to the Conservatives, who then eliminated the program.Some detractors have been critical of Quebec’s universal approach and believe the province should have instead targeted certain segments of the population. But Jacques counters the wide appeal has allowed Quebec’s plan to persist.“If a provincial government wants to make a program that will be politically robust and survive a change of government, they need to make sure the program will be broadly popular and covers most children and most parents,” he said.One factor that favoured Quebec was that the political divide in the province along federalist and sovereigntist lines meant the absence of a true small-c conservative opposition — the very type of government that historically has cut such programs elsewhere, Jacques noted. The other is that activists and proponents insisted the province promote such a program.In Ontario, where daycare is a hot-button issue in the current election campaign, Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals are pushing free care for preschoolers aged two-and-a-half and older, until they reach kindergarten at a cost of $2.2 billion over three years. The Conservatives are pushing a tax rebate program at a cost of $389 million per year.The New Democrats are proposing free child care for all families making less than $40,000 year and are aiming to have childcare costs average about $12 a day for those making more, drawing some similarities to Quebec. The price tag is around $11.4 billion over five years.What’s clear is the costs will be an obstacle for any province.Canada as a whole ranks near the bottom of OECD countries when it comes to childcare spending — roughly 0.2 per cent of GDP — while Quebec vastly outspends the rest of the provinces on daycare by a margin of about five to one.That’s where Jacques believes the federal government could help by easing the financial burdens on provinces to allow them to invest in affordable child care.In 2017, the federal Liberal government announced plans to spend $7 billion over the next decade to help ease the burden of childcare costs, including up to 40,000 new subsidized spots nationwide by 2019.Since the Parti Quebecois introduced $5-a-day subsidized daycare in Quebec 21 years ago, the daily fee has increased a few times.The Liberals also introduced a sliding scale three years ago, under which parents pay a base amount of about $8, and as much as nearly $22, depending on their income.The most popular daycares are the non-profit, subsidized centres known commonly as CPEs, which provide for trained educators and specific standards. But the number of spots — about 230,000 to date — are too few.In a bid to shorten those long lists, the Liberals have favoured expanding the number of private daycare centres — for-profit entities where parents pay upfront costs of $40 or more and benefit from federal deductions and provincial tax credits to bring the daily costs close to the subsidized system.The number of private daycare spots has boomed to 65,000 in less than a decade.That’s where the competing daycare narratives collide, says Universite de Montreal economist Pierre Fortin: while the province has seen the economic benefits of accessible child care, it is struggling to maintain quality.Fortin, himself a father of five, said the program has met one major goal of getting more women into the workforce. That has helped absorb the program’s expenses through increased tax revenues and transfers to families.The participation rate in the Quebec workforce of women between the ages of 20 and 44 stands at 87 per cent, compared to just 74 per cent in 1997. In a speech this year, Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz even credited the Quebec program for the percentage hike.In the same speech, Poloz noted the rate nationally is about 83 per cent.The federal government committed to increasing women in the workforce in the budget last February through a number of measures, but did not provide a solution to the childcare quandary.“All the research looking into the matter has concluded the main cause of increase in labour force participation has been the low-fee universal childcare program and the extended parental leave,” Fortin said.Fortin says the Quebec program has stumbled in overall quality. On average, the subsidized CPEs get very positive reviews for a highly qualified staff and environment, but the privately owned daycares offer a lower level of quality.That discrepancy was noted in a study released by the Observatoire des tous petits, a charitable foundation that studies child development.While the province’s subsidized educational childcare centres scored very well, the same couldn’t be said for privately held daycares or the other subsidized models.“The right verdict to give is that we have a two-tier system,” Fortin said.“One is spectacularly good but the other is spectacularly mediocre.”last_img read more

Elderly man killed as car rams into his cycle

first_imgNEW DELHI: A 65-year-old man was killed after a car rammed into his bicycle in north Delhi’s Civil Lines area.The accident happened on Wednesday night at around 10:45 pm when the man took a right turn from a signal and the car, which was coming from the opposite direction, rammed into his bicycle. The car was coming from Vidhan Sabha area and was on way to IP college in Civil Lines. Prakash Tiwari, a resident of P&T Colony in Civil Lines, was rushed to a hospital but he was declared brought dead by doctors. Tiwari was a local vendor at civil lines. “The accused has been arrested and he was the driver of the car. He could not react in time and hit the cycle. The victim was rushed to the hospital bit was declared brought dead by doctors,” said a senior police officer. Gaurav Saxena, the diver of the errant vehicle is a resident of Gandhi Nagar, was working as a driver for the past six months. A case under Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304 (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC was registered at Civil the Lines police station and the accused, identified as Gaurav Saxena, was arrested, the officer said.last_img read more