This another interesting topic that was discussed in my tutorial but I didn't truly understand it at the time. But I did a bit more reading on it and now I have a stance on it.
Again like my PM being too powerful I shall keep it relatively short and just discuss the main point/points to highlight the stronger arguments. My take on this is that: No, representation in Parliament should not Mirror Canada' Social Diversity.
First off I'd like to say that doing so would increase social fragmentation and group identification, as a canadian, I think that no matter where you are from or what background you have you are still canadian and anyone who is qualified enough should be able to represent us even if they do not share the same experiences. If we did follow representation by social diversity that would cause mass segragation among us.
Secondly if we did have social diversity representation then this would creat first and second class MPs because identity based representation is condescending. We want the best represenation possible not people who think they can represent us just because they share some of our traits.
Lastly, it is faulty to assume that having a diverse parliament would ensure that all minor issues would be solved. The Parliament is a place where large scale issues that affect the country as whole are discussed and dealt with.
Do you think that the diversity of Canada can be adequately representated if their needs and itnerests are not advanced by those who share their gender, Aboriginal status, ethnicity, race or disability?
What do you think?
-SW
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Is the Prime Minister too powerful?
I felt rather compelled to discuss this topic a while back especially after writing my essay and discussing this in the tutorial.
As it is a blog, I'll keep it rather simple and somewhat short but the debates could go on forever... But essentially my take on the this topic is that the Prime Minister is not too powerful. And I will address one particular main point and that would be this:
-Powers within the Government limit the PM's power.
If for example, the PM opposed a particular bill or motion but someone of similar stature, Finance Minister could challenge the PM's opposition and the like. This example can be seen when Paul Martin as the Finance Minister wanted to announce a major pension plan change for Canadians but PM Chretian opposed this and Martin challenged him and eventually Chretian subccombed.
In my opinion the Prime Minister is not too powerful in the worldy scale and lacks any sort of power compared to say the President of the United States. However, I would say he does have substantial power in Canada. This can be seen through the invoking of the War Measures Act by Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Any opinions or takes on the PM's power?
-SW
As it is a blog, I'll keep it rather simple and somewhat short but the debates could go on forever... But essentially my take on the this topic is that the Prime Minister is not too powerful. And I will address one particular main point and that would be this:
-Powers within the Government limit the PM's power.
If for example, the PM opposed a particular bill or motion but someone of similar stature, Finance Minister could challenge the PM's opposition and the like. This example can be seen when Paul Martin as the Finance Minister wanted to announce a major pension plan change for Canadians but PM Chretian opposed this and Martin challenged him and eventually Chretian subccombed.
In my opinion the Prime Minister is not too powerful in the worldy scale and lacks any sort of power compared to say the President of the United States. However, I would say he does have substantial power in Canada. This can be seen through the invoking of the War Measures Act by Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Any opinions or takes on the PM's power?
-SW
Monday, July 21, 2008
Afghan violence rising, top soldier concedes
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080721.CASUALTY21/TPStory/?query=afghan+violence
This has always got me baffled.. whether or not I have been completely informed or not about the situatino is quite irrelevant... but why are we still sending our soldiers off to afghan? I mean, 4 months ago the House of Commons voted to extend Canada's Afghan mission until 2011...
The violence doesn't seem to be dying down but has what I would call "blips", the ups and downs and seemingly no end...
From what I recall, the whole "war" in the middle east was invoked by the US president to "combat terrorism" which led to liberating them from dictatorship and the likes... Granted we are under some sort of agreement to back up the US, but its been so long alraedy, you would think they'd give it a rest?
It seems that there are some postitive effects to hwo things are going on in the east, but is it really worth sending so many of our soldiers off just to be blown up? We are Canadians and we are the peacekeepers in the eyes of many, so why is this still going on?
Someone enlighten me please.
-SW
This has always got me baffled.. whether or not I have been completely informed or not about the situatino is quite irrelevant... but why are we still sending our soldiers off to afghan? I mean, 4 months ago the House of Commons voted to extend Canada's Afghan mission until 2011...
The violence doesn't seem to be dying down but has what I would call "blips", the ups and downs and seemingly no end...
From what I recall, the whole "war" in the middle east was invoked by the US president to "combat terrorism" which led to liberating them from dictatorship and the likes... Granted we are under some sort of agreement to back up the US, but its been so long alraedy, you would think they'd give it a rest?
It seems that there are some postitive effects to hwo things are going on in the east, but is it really worth sending so many of our soldiers off just to be blown up? We are Canadians and we are the peacekeepers in the eyes of many, so why is this still going on?
Someone enlighten me please.
-SW
Legalizing mj?
It seems like one of the most controversial issues amongst today is whether or not marijuana should be legalized. I've heard many points for and against it. My stance still stands strong that it should be left illegal.
I know, marijuana is a plant and many argue that alcohol, cigarettes and coffee are more damaging to one’s system than marijuana. However, I think my primary concern is the fact that marijuana has to ability to really impair one’s mind, vision and reaction time. For those that drive under the influence of this drug, it could be extremely dangerous to those around him/her.
Laws are in place to protect society. The problem with legalizing pot is that right now, unlike alcohol, there is no way of detecting whether or not someone is under the influence of the drug. We can’t find those kinds of drivers roaming our streets and have no way of catching them. Roadside sobriety test doesn’t necessary help with this issue as marijuana is not detected in any way except through blood.
Yes, many can argue that making marijuana legal will lower crime rates, but the issue at hand is still that there is no way of detecting if one is under the influence of it. The dangers of marijuana users running around high is one that should be taken into careful consideration.
I definitely feel like for the safety of our citizens in Canada, marijuana is not something that should be hastily made legal. What are your thoughts? Should the government change the laws on this drug?
I know, marijuana is a plant and many argue that alcohol, cigarettes and coffee are more damaging to one’s system than marijuana. However, I think my primary concern is the fact that marijuana has to ability to really impair one’s mind, vision and reaction time. For those that drive under the influence of this drug, it could be extremely dangerous to those around him/her.
Laws are in place to protect society. The problem with legalizing pot is that right now, unlike alcohol, there is no way of detecting whether or not someone is under the influence of the drug. We can’t find those kinds of drivers roaming our streets and have no way of catching them. Roadside sobriety test doesn’t necessary help with this issue as marijuana is not detected in any way except through blood.
Yes, many can argue that making marijuana legal will lower crime rates, but the issue at hand is still that there is no way of detecting if one is under the influence of it. The dangers of marijuana users running around high is one that should be taken into careful consideration.
I definitely feel like for the safety of our citizens in Canada, marijuana is not something that should be hastily made legal. What are your thoughts? Should the government change the laws on this drug?
Crackdown on those speeders already!
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2008/07/21/hwy63-speeding-tickets.html
So apparently the RCMP has issued more than 300 speeding tickets over the weekend on Highway 63 in Alberta. 6 people have died in crashes this year and 10 the year before.
The highway is how many citizens get to work and other places. How can this many people be speeding on it and still be tolerated. That puts everybody driving on it at risk. About 80% of the tickets being issued are related to speeding. The law enforcement officers have issued 2000 speeding tickets on that highway this year.
This poses a serious threat on everyone else that uses the highway. The government definitely needs to address the speeding laws. So many times those that receive a speeding ticket get off of it easily. Officer doesn’t show up or technicalities often do the trick. Speeding is a serious offense in which it can take someone’s lives. It increases the chance of collision significantly.
With any law, we need to execute the enforcement and the punishment. Just because a lot of tickets are being issued, the punishments need to follow with it too. Those speeders need to recognize the consequences and realize how dangerous it is for themselves and others when they choose to go so much over speed limit. Those speed limits are there to serve a purpose which is to protect society. I don’t know how safe we would all feel knowing that everybody is driving at such a fast pace that the chance of collisions is extremely likely.
What do you all think? Should police officers focus on nabbing these speeders, or is this a minor issue compared to others?
- VL
So apparently the RCMP has issued more than 300 speeding tickets over the weekend on Highway 63 in Alberta. 6 people have died in crashes this year and 10 the year before.
The highway is how many citizens get to work and other places. How can this many people be speeding on it and still be tolerated. That puts everybody driving on it at risk. About 80% of the tickets being issued are related to speeding. The law enforcement officers have issued 2000 speeding tickets on that highway this year.
This poses a serious threat on everyone else that uses the highway. The government definitely needs to address the speeding laws. So many times those that receive a speeding ticket get off of it easily. Officer doesn’t show up or technicalities often do the trick. Speeding is a serious offense in which it can take someone’s lives. It increases the chance of collision significantly.
With any law, we need to execute the enforcement and the punishment. Just because a lot of tickets are being issued, the punishments need to follow with it too. Those speeders need to recognize the consequences and realize how dangerous it is for themselves and others when they choose to go so much over speed limit. Those speed limits are there to serve a purpose which is to protect society. I don’t know how safe we would all feel knowing that everybody is driving at such a fast pace that the chance of collisions is extremely likely.
What do you all think? Should police officers focus on nabbing these speeders, or is this a minor issue compared to others?
- VL
Canada urged to bring Khadr home
Ironically, for the last two posts I have been talking about the Khadr case and I just happend to cross yet another one!
This particular article discusses how Canada is urged to bring Khadr home and questioning why we haven't done so earlier. Khadr was sent to Guantanamo Bay, an American detention camp located on the shore of Cuba. In 2002, at the age of 15, Canadian citizen Omar Khadr was sent to Guantanamo, and has remained there ever since. Considering Khadr's age, this is a unique case in Canadian legal and political history.
He is charged with taking part in various acts of terrorism, the most severe being the accusation that he threw the grenade that killed American Sgt. Christopher Speer. Earlier this year, documents that indicated there was no significant proof that Khadr was the one handling the grenade were accidentally released from the Pentagon. In June, the Canadian government proposed a possible repatriation of Khadr, although talks are still preliminary
The most fustrating thing I would say is that it's taking numerous years before our governmetn finally interjects and is trying to solve the issue finally...
And I find a lot of the "proof" is quite questionable as I remember in earlier articles that there was no mention of this "evidence" until recently....
Comments?
-SW
This particular article discusses how Canada is urged to bring Khadr home and questioning why we haven't done so earlier. Khadr was sent to Guantanamo Bay, an American detention camp located on the shore of Cuba. In 2002, at the age of 15, Canadian citizen Omar Khadr was sent to Guantanamo, and has remained there ever since. Considering Khadr's age, this is a unique case in Canadian legal and political history.
He is charged with taking part in various acts of terrorism, the most severe being the accusation that he threw the grenade that killed American Sgt. Christopher Speer. Earlier this year, documents that indicated there was no significant proof that Khadr was the one handling the grenade were accidentally released from the Pentagon. In June, the Canadian government proposed a possible repatriation of Khadr, although talks are still preliminary
The most fustrating thing I would say is that it's taking numerous years before our governmetn finally interjects and is trying to solve the issue finally...
And I find a lot of the "proof" is quite questionable as I remember in earlier articles that there was no mention of this "evidence" until recently....
Comments?
-SW
Former PM says Khadr should be returned
Previous Liberal government unaware of extent of abuse allegations, Martin says...
This just came to my attention after I finished making my postings on the current PM being very selfish... there wasn't too much info on this article but it was an interesting read...
Former prime minister Paul Martin says Canada should take steps to bring Omar Khadr back to Canada and I totally agree with him because as fellow citizens of Canada we should do what we can for each other...
Although this seems like anotehr stab at Harper but again they mention that he has refused to intervene and insisting Canada has "no real alternative" but to follow a U.S. military tribunal's proceedings against Khadr.
Now let's ask why a Canadian citizen should be following the U.S military proceedings?
Another interesting point to make is why does the Former PM care? He hasn't been in the house of commons for ages and is currently taking care of personal agenda at hand.
Comments?
-SW
This just came to my attention after I finished making my postings on the current PM being very selfish... there wasn't too much info on this article but it was an interesting read...
Former prime minister Paul Martin says Canada should take steps to bring Omar Khadr back to Canada and I totally agree with him because as fellow citizens of Canada we should do what we can for each other...
Although this seems like anotehr stab at Harper but again they mention that he has refused to intervene and insisting Canada has "no real alternative" but to follow a U.S. military tribunal's proceedings against Khadr.
Now let's ask why a Canadian citizen should be following the U.S military proceedings?
Another interesting point to make is why does the Former PM care? He hasn't been in the house of commons for ages and is currently taking care of personal agenda at hand.
Comments?
-SW
PM 'playing politics' with Khadr because of 'brown skin,' Muslim says
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/464372
I know that Haper was a pretty good guy but after reading this made me stop and think for a moment. How deceptive is our PM?
The situation is as such: Recently a canadian muslim by the name of Omar Khadr is being held for the reason of potentially being involved with the 9-11 incident because he is a muslim.
So what's the problem and why is Stephen Harper the bad guy?
After the 9-11 incident, the U.S in particular has what many have deemed as “Islamophobia” and Canadian Islamic Congress president Mohamed Elmasry, believes Harper's lack of action is because he wishes to score "political points".
He further believes that “This is where a leader comes in to say, `This is really wrong and I have to correct that wrong by bringing this person (back to Canada) even if I lose some political points with Islamophobes,”’ Elmasry said in an interview today.
Contrasting this is the case of William Sampson who was helped out and freed from a death sentence in Saudi Arabia in 2003 and it was the federal Liberal government of the day made pleas on Sampson’s behalf to the Saudi government.
Why is Stephen Harper so callously indifferent to Omar Khadr’s case?” Elmasry wrote.
“It’s painfully obvious: William Sampson is a white Westerner while his fellow Canadian citizen, Omar Khadr, is brown-skinned and a Muslim.”
As you can see there is no logic behind Harper's action so the only reason left is that he is trying to gain favour and political points...
Anyone feel the same that Harper is looking out for himself and not for the people?
-SW
I know that Haper was a pretty good guy but after reading this made me stop and think for a moment. How deceptive is our PM?
The situation is as such: Recently a canadian muslim by the name of Omar Khadr is being held for the reason of potentially being involved with the 9-11 incident because he is a muslim.
So what's the problem and why is Stephen Harper the bad guy?
After the 9-11 incident, the U.S in particular has what many have deemed as “Islamophobia” and Canadian Islamic Congress president Mohamed Elmasry, believes Harper's lack of action is because he wishes to score "political points".
He further believes that “This is where a leader comes in to say, `This is really wrong and I have to correct that wrong by bringing this person (back to Canada) even if I lose some political points with Islamophobes,”’ Elmasry said in an interview today.
Contrasting this is the case of William Sampson who was helped out and freed from a death sentence in Saudi Arabia in 2003 and it was the federal Liberal government of the day made pleas on Sampson’s behalf to the Saudi government.
Why is Stephen Harper so callously indifferent to Omar Khadr’s case?” Elmasry wrote.
“It’s painfully obvious: William Sampson is a white Westerner while his fellow Canadian citizen, Omar Khadr, is brown-skinned and a Muslim.”
As you can see there is no logic behind Harper's action so the only reason left is that he is trying to gain favour and political points...
Anyone feel the same that Harper is looking out for himself and not for the people?
-SW
More Secured Passports!
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/463999
There has been anticipation for this year that an increase of 10 percent in applications for passports and passports being issued. This year 5.2 million passports were applied for. There seems to be a continued increase from year to year in the amount of people applying for passports.
The Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s announced that he has plans for a higher-security electronic passport. He will increase the expiry date to 10 years, which is double of what it is now. This new passport will look very much like the one we have now, except a tamper-resistant microchip will be embedded in it to hold the owner’s personal data.
When traveling to our neighbour just south of us, none other than United States, birth certificates and other documents does not suffice anymore as of last year. A passport will be needed for a Canadian citizen to cross the border.
This all means that there are going to be more restrictive rules on our passport which could mean more limits on our freedom of mobility. However, this does mean higher security of who is entering or leaving our country. Sometimes to protect our society, the government has to put limits on our freedoms such as wearing a seat belt or having a speed limit.
Is this regulation just another one of those in which it limits our freedom but is better for us?
What do you all think about this? Does this change benefit us or does it constrain us some more?
- VL
There has been anticipation for this year that an increase of 10 percent in applications for passports and passports being issued. This year 5.2 million passports were applied for. There seems to be a continued increase from year to year in the amount of people applying for passports.
The Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s announced that he has plans for a higher-security electronic passport. He will increase the expiry date to 10 years, which is double of what it is now. This new passport will look very much like the one we have now, except a tamper-resistant microchip will be embedded in it to hold the owner’s personal data.
When traveling to our neighbour just south of us, none other than United States, birth certificates and other documents does not suffice anymore as of last year. A passport will be needed for a Canadian citizen to cross the border.
This all means that there are going to be more restrictive rules on our passport which could mean more limits on our freedom of mobility. However, this does mean higher security of who is entering or leaving our country. Sometimes to protect our society, the government has to put limits on our freedoms such as wearing a seat belt or having a speed limit.
Is this regulation just another one of those in which it limits our freedom but is better for us?
What do you all think about this? Does this change benefit us or does it constrain us some more?
- VL
GREEN SCREEN ON DECISIONS
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080721.wenvironment21/BNStory/National/home
Earlier this month a new law was passed that received Royal Assent. Regardless of who or what decisions are being made by senior public servants, an outline of how the environment will be affected will need to be put forth. The environment must be attempted to be protected at all cost, failure to comply will result in consequences such as losing their annual bonuses. This also applies to politicians in trying to ensure that the government’s environmental goals are being met.
I think this is a wonderful measure to try to encourage the whole ‘go green’ goals of Canada. This is another step towards environmental commitments that need to be made and should be made. Now public servants and the government will work towards trying to sustain our environment the best we can. I hope now ‘going green’ can be taken more seriously on all decisions being made that would affect the environment in any way.
I definitely think this is a great idea because the environment would be taken into consideration more and be given a priority. However, what percentage of bonuses would be deemed acceptable to take from these public service executives? What price do they have to pay for making decisions that affect the environment? What do you think? It seems like they still have some fine tuning on this law that need to be made.
-VL
Sunday, July 20, 2008
NOTICE THE ABORIGINALS!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080719.NATIVES19/TPStory/TPNational/Politics/
Our Prime Minister is finally going to do something more for the aboriginals and their issues this fall! Provincial and territorial premiers are meeting with Stephen Harper to discuss all the poor social conditions Canada’s aboriginals are facing.
Quebec Premier Jean Charest advises Mr. Harper to fix the aboriginal education and social condition issue as a means of apology for the residential schools.
Aboriginals have felt neglected by Canada, a nation that is also their home, for so long. Perhaps they will finally get the closure and attention they need as promised by Harper to address their concerns in the fall. Harper says he will pledge $5 billion over the next five years to work with provinces to try and build the standard of living for the aboriginals. It will hopefully reach the national average within 10 years time.
This pledge is one that can’t be broken for Harper’s own sake. He made that pledge to help aboriginals in writing, loud and clear. National aboriginal leaders are probably invited to the fall’s meeting too. Not that he should back down from what he promises to do anyways.
I think the aboriginals in Canada have been neglected long enough. Their needs are important and the government has taken long enough to see that. Hopefully, their standard of living can increase and they will feel more included within this nation. I strongly believe that by helping them reach the national average of standing of living is the least we can do for them.
What do you all think? Should Harper set aside so much money and effort to help the aboriginals?
-VL
Our Prime Minister is finally going to do something more for the aboriginals and their issues this fall! Provincial and territorial premiers are meeting with Stephen Harper to discuss all the poor social conditions Canada’s aboriginals are facing.
Quebec Premier Jean Charest advises Mr. Harper to fix the aboriginal education and social condition issue as a means of apology for the residential schools.
Aboriginals have felt neglected by Canada, a nation that is also their home, for so long. Perhaps they will finally get the closure and attention they need as promised by Harper to address their concerns in the fall. Harper says he will pledge $5 billion over the next five years to work with provinces to try and build the standard of living for the aboriginals. It will hopefully reach the national average within 10 years time.
This pledge is one that can’t be broken for Harper’s own sake. He made that pledge to help aboriginals in writing, loud and clear. National aboriginal leaders are probably invited to the fall’s meeting too. Not that he should back down from what he promises to do anyways.
I think the aboriginals in Canada have been neglected long enough. Their needs are important and the government has taken long enough to see that. Hopefully, their standard of living can increase and they will feel more included within this nation. I strongly believe that by helping them reach the national average of standing of living is the least we can do for them.
What do you all think? Should Harper set aside so much money and effort to help the aboriginals?
-VL
Canadian Workers Recognized By All Provinces!
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/462637
The premiers of Canada are allowing Canadian workers more freedom to move around within the nation. The skills of workers would be recognized in every province and territory by April 1.
McGuinty hopes to make Canada as competitive as it can possibly be. A worker’s qualification should be recognized by all areas within the nation. The only exception would be for safety and security reasons. This new legislation would not allow the movement of workers to hinder their credentials. If employers discriminate credentials because of relocation then the penalties can be up to $5 million.
According to Manitoba Premier Gar Doer, he says that a teacher is a teacher; a nurse is a nurse, despite where you are.
I think this is a very good change for both the employers and the workers. It will make the option of relocating much easier on workers. This will also allow them to avoid having to go through a recertification process. Employers will also gain from this because they have a wider selection of potential employees to choose from. This is really awesome because I feel like one’s credentials should have been recognized from an earlier time. It’s better now than never though. I really do feel like one’s qualification should not depend on where in Canada they are, but rather a standard that applies to all of Canada. Whether or not a person relocates to another place, their credentials should not be undermined.
What do you all think? Do you think different provinces should have different certification? That just because you are certified in Newfoundland does not mean you would be in say, Ontario?
-VL
The premiers of Canada are allowing Canadian workers more freedom to move around within the nation. The skills of workers would be recognized in every province and territory by April 1.
McGuinty hopes to make Canada as competitive as it can possibly be. A worker’s qualification should be recognized by all areas within the nation. The only exception would be for safety and security reasons. This new legislation would not allow the movement of workers to hinder their credentials. If employers discriminate credentials because of relocation then the penalties can be up to $5 million.
According to Manitoba Premier Gar Doer, he says that a teacher is a teacher; a nurse is a nurse, despite where you are.
I think this is a very good change for both the employers and the workers. It will make the option of relocating much easier on workers. This will also allow them to avoid having to go through a recertification process. Employers will also gain from this because they have a wider selection of potential employees to choose from. This is really awesome because I feel like one’s credentials should have been recognized from an earlier time. It’s better now than never though. I really do feel like one’s qualification should not depend on where in Canada they are, but rather a standard that applies to all of Canada. Whether or not a person relocates to another place, their credentials should not be undermined.
What do you all think? Do you think different provinces should have different certification? That just because you are certified in Newfoundland does not mean you would be in say, Ontario?
-VL
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Filipina Nanny can take advantage of Canada’s Health-Care System
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/07/18/juana-tejada.html
Juana Tejada, a nanny from the Philippines, has been living in Canada since 2003, under the live-in caregiver program. In 2007, she was diagnosed with colon cancer and she wanted the right to stay in Canada to receive proper care. Initially, the immigration department refused to grant her the right to stay in the country, but recently, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has reversed the decision and Juana Tejada has been granted permanent residency and is therefore allowed to stay in Canada to receive health-care.
I think there are two issues regarding this situation. Not only has Juana been given the opportunity to receive medical attention from Canada, but she has also been granted permanent residency! Is this fair? I am not familiar with the immigration process but from what I understand, it definitely takes a lot of time (years) to become a permanent resident of Canada and in this situation, we have an individual who is very sick and bam…she gets permanent residency. I strongly disagree with the decision to allow her to become a permanent resident of Canada. I believe that once she is done her treatment, she should either go back to her home country, or apply to be a permanent resident just like everyone else. Why should she be treated differently?
I strongly believe that Juana is entitled to receive health-care from Ontario. She has devoted time to the Canadian economy, working for us, and contributing her time and efforts to us, and why would we turn around and send her back to her homeland to receive care? How cold-hearted is that!? People may say that she is being a burden on the health-care system, using our tax dollars for her benefit, but she did pay taxes for four years. She didn’t come here because she was sick…she came here to work and got sick while she was trying to benefit the Canadian economy.
The government will surely have to amend legislation regarding the issue of people from overseas coming to Canada to work. I am sure that we will be seeing a lot of cases where people will come to Canada (already knowing that they’re sick), work for a year and try to get health-care benefits, using Juana Tejada’s case as a precedent. The government will definitely need to think long and hard about what they are going to do about future cases of people coming from away and working. Are they still going to have to pay tax dollars? If so, then they should be granted health-care, since they contributed to it. Will they be granted permanent residency? As I said before, I don’t think that they should, but the government may have a different opinion on this.
What do you guys think about this issue?
SS
Juana Tejada, a nanny from the Philippines, has been living in Canada since 2003, under the live-in caregiver program. In 2007, she was diagnosed with colon cancer and she wanted the right to stay in Canada to receive proper care. Initially, the immigration department refused to grant her the right to stay in the country, but recently, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has reversed the decision and Juana Tejada has been granted permanent residency and is therefore allowed to stay in Canada to receive health-care.
I think there are two issues regarding this situation. Not only has Juana been given the opportunity to receive medical attention from Canada, but she has also been granted permanent residency! Is this fair? I am not familiar with the immigration process but from what I understand, it definitely takes a lot of time (years) to become a permanent resident of Canada and in this situation, we have an individual who is very sick and bam…she gets permanent residency. I strongly disagree with the decision to allow her to become a permanent resident of Canada. I believe that once she is done her treatment, she should either go back to her home country, or apply to be a permanent resident just like everyone else. Why should she be treated differently?
I strongly believe that Juana is entitled to receive health-care from Ontario. She has devoted time to the Canadian economy, working for us, and contributing her time and efforts to us, and why would we turn around and send her back to her homeland to receive care? How cold-hearted is that!? People may say that she is being a burden on the health-care system, using our tax dollars for her benefit, but she did pay taxes for four years. She didn’t come here because she was sick…she came here to work and got sick while she was trying to benefit the Canadian economy.
The government will surely have to amend legislation regarding the issue of people from overseas coming to Canada to work. I am sure that we will be seeing a lot of cases where people will come to Canada (already knowing that they’re sick), work for a year and try to get health-care benefits, using Juana Tejada’s case as a precedent. The government will definitely need to think long and hard about what they are going to do about future cases of people coming from away and working. Are they still going to have to pay tax dollars? If so, then they should be granted health-care, since they contributed to it. Will they be granted permanent residency? As I said before, I don’t think that they should, but the government may have a different opinion on this.
What do you guys think about this issue?
SS
Friday, July 18, 2008
Watch Your Gas Tank...Literally
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/462665
I came across this article today, and it caught my eye, as I’m sure with soaring gas prices, this thought has come across almost everyone’s mind. Cases of leaving a gas station without paying has increased 40% in York Region this year compared to last year. This is happening at least once a day, ranging from as low as $50, and reaching as high as $90, and I would not be surprised if there were instances higher than $100. It has even gone so far that people have resorted to not only stealing gas from gas stations, but siphoning gas from other people’s cars as well.
Gas stations have cameras, although sometimes it is unable to pick up the suspect’s face, or
license plate making it almost impossible to track them down. As a result, many gas stations are considering installing pumps that require a customer to pay before pumping. The pump will not operate until the transaction has gone through and it will automatically shut off once the preset amount has been reached. (Also recommend is a locking gas cap for your own car)
I personally believe that this is a good idea and should be implemented by the gas companies as this will eliminate people leaving without paying, however, this may raise issues among the general public. Installing these pumps are labeling some as thieves before they even arrive at the pump. The effects of people leaving the pump without paying are passed on to the others in the community.
I am an honest person and always pay for my gas but I’m not able to judge how much gas I am going to put in my car. Who knows how far $15 dollars worth of gas is going to get you these days. What happens if I want a full tank and not sure how much it is? What if I think it will take $20, but $15 fills it up? Will the gas company refund my money?
What do you guys think about this solution? What else can be done to stop people from driving off without paying?
SS
I came across this article today, and it caught my eye, as I’m sure with soaring gas prices, this thought has come across almost everyone’s mind. Cases of leaving a gas station without paying has increased 40% in York Region this year compared to last year. This is happening at least once a day, ranging from as low as $50, and reaching as high as $90, and I would not be surprised if there were instances higher than $100. It has even gone so far that people have resorted to not only stealing gas from gas stations, but siphoning gas from other people’s cars as well.
Gas stations have cameras, although sometimes it is unable to pick up the suspect’s face, or
license plate making it almost impossible to track them down. As a result, many gas stations are considering installing pumps that require a customer to pay before pumping. The pump will not operate until the transaction has gone through and it will automatically shut off once the preset amount has been reached. (Also recommend is a locking gas cap for your own car)
I personally believe that this is a good idea and should be implemented by the gas companies as this will eliminate people leaving without paying, however, this may raise issues among the general public. Installing these pumps are labeling some as thieves before they even arrive at the pump. The effects of people leaving the pump without paying are passed on to the others in the community.
I am an honest person and always pay for my gas but I’m not able to judge how much gas I am going to put in my car. Who knows how far $15 dollars worth of gas is going to get you these days. What happens if I want a full tank and not sure how much it is? What if I think it will take $20, but $15 fills it up? Will the gas company refund my money?
What do you guys think about this solution? What else can be done to stop people from driving off without paying?
SS
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Smoking Bans
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/smoking/smokingbans.html
For some time now, smoking has been banned in many places, including offices and enclosed areas including bars and restaurants. In addition, separate smoking rooms have been closed down as well, which was something that I was unaware of.
I think that anti-smoking legislation is great. The government took a while to implement this law, which is one of the negative aspects I see with this whole issue. You think they would have acted sooner eh? I mean, especially with the effects of second-hand smoke.
I think that getting rid of separate smoking rooms all together is pretty bad. Why? I am not a smoker, and I am not trying to justify that it is a good habit to take on, but some people need to smoke. They are just so addicted to it and taking a few puffs relaxes them and puts them at ease…so why get rid of those separate rooms? It’s not like non-smokers will be subjected to the smoke since the room is an enclosed area. Anyone who goes into a smoking room will have to deal with the consequences on their own, whether or not the are a smoker.
On another note, I strongly believe that smokers who get sick, (because of smoking), need to pay some sort of fee for health care. I know that health care is free in Canada, and that is great. However, those who smoke are just asking to get sick…their sickness is more or less avoidable and they should not be given free health care when there are other sick individuals who get sick because of some unavoidable factor. It isn’t your fault that someone smokes and it certainly is not my fault that someone smokes…it is THEIR fault and they should pay the consequences for this if they end up in the hospital room because of smoking.
I do realize that a law like this would be VERY hard to implement, but I want to know what you think about this. Firstly, what do you think about the issue of separate smoking rooms, and secondly, what do you think about the idea of having smokers pay for health care if they get sick because of their bad habit?
SS
For some time now, smoking has been banned in many places, including offices and enclosed areas including bars and restaurants. In addition, separate smoking rooms have been closed down as well, which was something that I was unaware of.
I think that anti-smoking legislation is great. The government took a while to implement this law, which is one of the negative aspects I see with this whole issue. You think they would have acted sooner eh? I mean, especially with the effects of second-hand smoke.
I think that getting rid of separate smoking rooms all together is pretty bad. Why? I am not a smoker, and I am not trying to justify that it is a good habit to take on, but some people need to smoke. They are just so addicted to it and taking a few puffs relaxes them and puts them at ease…so why get rid of those separate rooms? It’s not like non-smokers will be subjected to the smoke since the room is an enclosed area. Anyone who goes into a smoking room will have to deal with the consequences on their own, whether or not the are a smoker.
On another note, I strongly believe that smokers who get sick, (because of smoking), need to pay some sort of fee for health care. I know that health care is free in Canada, and that is great. However, those who smoke are just asking to get sick…their sickness is more or less avoidable and they should not be given free health care when there are other sick individuals who get sick because of some unavoidable factor. It isn’t your fault that someone smokes and it certainly is not my fault that someone smokes…it is THEIR fault and they should pay the consequences for this if they end up in the hospital room because of smoking.
I do realize that a law like this would be VERY hard to implement, but I want to know what you think about this. Firstly, what do you think about the issue of separate smoking rooms, and secondly, what do you think about the idea of having smokers pay for health care if they get sick because of their bad habit?
SS
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Should Party Discipline be Relaxed?
My take on this topic is that: no, it should not be relaxed.
The argument is for relaxing party discipline is that MPs should not be “trained sheep” but an MP is elected to serve as a member of a particular party. Within the party, the MP is called upon to deliberate and participate in formulating policies, and then to accept a support the majority decision.
The Prime Minister and government must have the means of achieving their objectives and as MPs are a member of a particular party that provides broad perspectives on NATIONAL issues, individual constituencies and every single issue at hand shouldn't always be on the top of the agenda.
The party "whip" has many misconceptions such as being the menancing disciplinarian imposing the will of the party on recalcitrant MPs. However, this is not the case, although there are some instances where MPs have been coerced or even threatened with sanctions if they do not conform. But party discipline is largely self-imposed. Besides, MPs at least for the sake of their own self-preservation, are willing to tolerate party discipline…(ex: no MP since 1940 has ever broken party ranks during a minority government nor has any MP ever left the government side with a majority fewer than nine seats.
As you can see, we need a certain degree of party discipline to get anything done and to have a solid government. Now a better question would be to ask should Canada move close to an American Model where congress is able to vote according to their set of principle and ethics?
Thoughts? Opinions?
-SW
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
