The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

6- The Oakville Beaver Weekend, Saturday May 19, 2007 www.oakvillebeaver.com The Oakville Beaver 467 Speers Rd., Oakville Ont. L6K 3S4 (905) 845-3824 Fax: 337-5567 Classified Advertising: 845-3824, ext. 224 Circulation: 845-9742 The Oakville Beaver is a member of the Ontario Press Council. The council is located at 80 Gould St., Suite 206, Toronto, Ont., M5B 2M7. Phone (416) 340-1981. Advertising is accepted on the condition that, in the event of a typographical error, that portion of advertising space occupied by the erroneous item, together with a reasonable allowance for signature, will not be charged for, but the balance of the advertisement will be paid for at the applicable rate. The publisher reserves the right to categorize advertisements or decline. Editorial and advertising content of the Oakville Beaver is protected by copyright. Unauthorized use is prohibited. Commentary Guest Columnist Security and prosperity partnership: for whom? Bonnie Brown Oakville MPP You may have heard recently that Canada is planning to increase the allowable levels of pesticide residue on our fruits and vegetables. What is the logic behind accepting Bonnie Brown increased consumption of toxins? It turns out that much of these foods are imported and big business considers regulatory differences between Canada and the less restrictive American regime to be a "trade irritant". In other words, your health and mine must be jeopardized because our current health standards are impinging upon the profits of transnational agribusiness corporations. We've been assured by the Minister of Health that Canada's new limits will be based on science and therefore ensure the safety of Canadians. However, one is left wondering what our current limits are based on if not science? The Minister also assures us that Canada has and will maintain the highest standards of safety for pesticides and other toxins. However, Canada's current standards only seem appropriate when compared to the United States where 40 per cent of regulated pesticides limits are higher than ours. America's standards are set by the Environmental Protection Agency, an agency that was reorganized by the Bush administration and has since been condemned by scientists within the U.S. for its cozy relationship with industry. A quick glance at Europe reveals a different view of Canada's standards. Our current limit on permethrin is 400 times higher than in Europe and the Canadian cap on methoxychlor is 1,400 times higher. Canada's current pesticide limits are "middle of the pack" at best and are about to be compromised further. All this is due to an industry initiative called "Smart Regulation" in which Mexican and Canadian regulatory regimes are being "harmonized" with those of the United States. What is rarely mentioned is that this effort is being organized through the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP. This international agreement was initiated in 2005 by the governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico. It was the brain child of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives who want "deep integration" of the Canadian and American economies, military and culture. This would include uniform regulatory regimes for a wide array of products and services including food, drugs and environmental protections. It would include increased interoperability between the Canadian and U.S. military. It would include a continental energy pact whereby Canada would guarantee America's access to our energy resources and force Canadians to compete with Americans for our own electricity as we currently do with our oil and gas. It would include a North American security perimeter that could erode the civil liberties of our citizens. It would include common immigration and environmental policies and a host of other policies that together would dramatically undermine the sovereignty and autonomy of Canada and its citizens. The SPP's participants are well aware that this agenda lacks broad public support and have therefore committed themselves to what they call "integration by stealth". The SPP is not a signed treaty and has never been brought before the legisla NEIL OLIVER Publisher JILL DAVIS Editor in Chief ROD JERRED Managing Editor DANIEL BAIRD Advertising Director RIZIERO VERTOLLI Photography Director TERI CASAS Business Manager MARK DILLS Director of Production Metroland Media Group Ltd. includes: Ajax/Pickering News Advertiser, Alliston Herald/Courier, Arthur Enterprise News, Barrie Advance, Caledon Enterprise, Brampton Guardian, Burlington Post, Burlington Shopping News, City Parent, Collingwood/Wasaga Connection, East York Mirror, Erin Advocate/Country Routes, Etobicoke Guardian, Flamborough Review, Georgetown Independent/Acton Free Press, Harriston Review, Huronia Business Times, Lindsay This Week, Markham Economist & Sun, Midland/Penetanguishine Mirror, Milton Canadian Champion, Milton Shopping News, MANUEL GARCIA Production Manager CHARLENE HALL Director of Distribution ALEXANDRIA CALHOUN Circ. Manager WEBSITE oakvillebeaver.com The Oakville Beaver is a division of IAN OLIVER Group Publisher Media Group Ltd. Mississauga Business Times, Mississauga News, Napanee Guide, Newmarket/Aurora Era-Banner, Northumberland News, North York Mirror, Oakville Beaver, Oakville Shopping News, Oldtimers Hockey News, Orillia Today, Oshawa/Whitby/Clarington Port Perry This Week, Owen Sound Tribune, Palmerston Observer, Peterborough This Week, Picton County Guide, Richmond Hill/Thornhill/Vaughan Liberal, Scarborough Mirror, Stouffville/Uxbridge Tribune, Forever Young, City of York Guardian RECOGNIZED FOR EXCELLENCE BY: Ontario Community Newspapers Association Canadian Community Newspapers Association Suburban Newspapers of America THE OAKVILLE BEAVER IS PROUD OFFICIAL MEDIA SPONSOR FOR: United Way of Oakville TV AUCTION See xxx What to do when a Curtis, Clem or Corey come a courtin' A friend phoned, sounding rather frazzled and frantic. He said that his daughter had been acting peculiar and -- caring and concerned father that he is -- he determinedly got to the bottom of her odd behavior. Apparently his precious progeny was out of sorts because she had been asked out. On some sort of date. By a boy. Upon hearing this news, my stomach sank and I broke out in a cold sweat, out of empathy: his daughter, you see, is all of 11years-old, the same not-so-advanced age as our daughter Haley. Now, I'm not an idiot and I'm not an ostrich. I knew this dreaded day would dawn. I knew that boys would begin to take an interest in my daughter and that my daughter might even begin to take an interest in those boys. Hadn't I fallen foolishly in love in Grade 6 with a girl who initially failed to even acknowledge my existence and then later took full advantage of my sorry state of pitiful puppy love to secure rides home from school on the handlebars of my bike? Ah, I can still smell her windblown hair ­ like springtime, only sweeter and with more promise! Still, I really didn't think the day would dawn so soon (ah, maybe I am an idiot or an ostrich). Honestly, I was quite prepared to act all grown-up and mature and give my daughter my full blessing, indeed encouragement, when she came to request my permission to sashay out on her first date ­ when Curtis or Clem or Corey came a courtin'. But, in my mind, she'd be well into her 40s and still living at home with her daddy when that insanity occurred. Not 11! I asked my friend what he intended to do. Lock her up and throw away the key? Andy Juniper He said that he did not want to act like one of those crazed, overprotective ubiquitous father-morons on television sitcoms, who handle these situations with all the social grace of a bull in a china shop. So, ah, he thought he'd just deftly hand the whole nightmare over to his wife, who, like the sane, rational ubiquitous mother-saints on television sitcoms, would know exactly how to handle the situation with admirable aplomb. I hung up and told my wife the news, sweat still furrowing on my brow. And, in case she didn't grasp the seriousness of the news, I spelled it out for her. "Girls the age of our baby are going out on dates. You know what this means," I added ominously, "I'm going to have to have the dreaded `talk' with her." My wife nodded in complete agreement. "You're right, it's time for the bird-and-the-bees talk." "No," I cringed, "not the birds-and-the-bees talk! The nunnery talk." I mean, there was no reason on Earth why my daughter could not live out the rest of her days in sweet seclusion, far, far away from boys.The look on my wife's face suggested that I was acting the way those father-morons on TV act. As I write this, my darling daughter is in school. With boys. Boys who may very well be making mushy eyes at her. And she may be making mushy eyes right back. I know there are people out there who think this is fine, that this is just a normal part of growing up, but those people are probably women who play mother-saints on TV sitcoms. Personally, I can't stand the thoughts going through my head. My daughter. On a date? No way. She's way too young for that nonsense. And I'm way too old. Andy Juniper can be visited at his Web site, www.strangledeggs.com, or contacted at ajuniper@strangledeggs.com